tv Public Affairs CSPAN December 12, 2012 1:00pm-5:00pm EST
issues that relate to the cliff. this matters, what happens here. it matters that we get a job done. it is relevant to the lives of the american people. as we gather here, we, a country of great family traditions, of family values or of commitment to faith, faith in ourselves, our families and our god, our country, are away from home while people are lighting a menorah candle, a hanukkah candle, while people are trimming trees and the rest of that. ok, we're here to do our job but we we hear from the republican side that they might not be ready to relieve the pain and curiousity of the -- that the american families have about whether we're going to get this done. . whether the markets will have confidence how to grow the
economy and create jobs and remove all doubt, remove all doubt in the full faith and credit in the united states of america. every time you come to this floor it's a question, why are we here? we are here to do the people's work. let's sit down. get it done. and move forward. instead of filling the agenda however worthy some of those initiatives may be, instead of not along with passing a middle income tax -- this is also reminiscent of a year ago. the president proposed, the house and senate, democrats and republicans, voted for the payroll tax holiday. the republicans in the house resisted. painted themselves into a corner until they had no choice. the issue had been made too hot for them to handle and they finally had to come around to
supporting the payroll tax holiday. and here we are again. 100% of the american people will receive a tax cut when we pass the middle income tax cut. the wealthiest people in our country will receive a tax cut up to their income of $250,000. we are asking them to pay a little bit more for what they make over $250,000 a year. to help reduce the deficit, to help grow the economy, grow the economy. that growth is what is essential. you want to reduce the deficit, create jobs. why aren't we doing that? why aren't we just having all this subterfuge and this, that, and the other thing? why are we being told make a reservation christmas eve and one on the day after christmas to come back?
is there not an appreciation for the jewish holidays, christmas holiday, kwanzaa, all the days families come around, bonding rituals, important to the strength of our society, do we not care about that? the american people do and they want to shop for it. they want to have family dinners and they want to exchange gifts as is the tradition, but they really don't know if they are going to be able to pay the bills in january that they -- for the purchases in december. the president has been very clear, democrats have agreed to $1.6 trillion in cuts. much of it voted on -- all of it voted on already either in the budget control act or in the -- other actions taken by this congress in the course of this congress.
we have already taken up -- savings of over $1 trillion, redirected savings in medicare to prolong its life and to increase benefits. that would be a $700 billion in the affordable care act, and another another $400 billion in the president's budget. we are committed to that. where are the tax cuts? where are the tax cuts for the middle class that would inject demand into the economy and would therefore create jobs and create growth? where are the revenues that we would get if we did that and then had the additional participation of those who make over $250,000? where is the revenue that the republicans are willing to bring to the table?
all we have seen from them is a letter. all we have heard from them is they don't want to tax the rich. all we know is that the public is very much onboard with everyone in our country paying his or her fair share. so this rule today that says give us authority to have other bills brought to the floor, well, one of those bills is the middle income tax cut, we are happy with that. but if that isn't the plan, then i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question because that will then enable us to bring a rule to the floor which calls for bringing forth the middle income tax cut before we leave here. again, we support the president and his proposal, which is fair, which reduces the deficit, which creates jobs, and which will work for the american people. with that i yield back the
balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. gentleman from texas. mr. session: thank you very much, mr. speaker. with great respect to my dear friend, the gentlewoman from san francisco, and the minority leader, i'm delighted that she came down to engage us on this very important issue. the gentlewoman does recognize and know that the house on august 1, in fact, did exactly what she has suggested that they, and that is to take action on what the future tax rates would be in this country. and on a bipartisan basis, 256 -171, this house of representatives said, let's understand that now is a bad time to raise taxes on the american people. and let's extend for a period of time all the tax cuts which
allow america to keep working. we passed it 256-171. mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that i insert into the record a chart that exists on the house budget committee that shows the choice of the futures, and what future was presented, if i could -- thank you very much. this slide that i've got that's on the house budget committeele is essentially about the current pathway the president would choose as outlined in his budget that the gentlewoman, ms. pelosi, spoke of that got no votes in the united states senate. not one vote. no votes here. the plan that the president has presented which would substantially -- not just raise taxes but substantially raise
spending, if you isolate the president's ideas of simply raising taxes on the -- whatever he calls the top 2% or those that have a household income of $250,000 and above, what you essentially do, mr. speaker, is very quickly lose 700,000 american jobs. and that's the answer that this administration fails to include in their talking points. that there is a huge impact. part of that impact, mr. speaker, comes from the problem where dividends, dividends, are those -- that money that comes back as a result of an investment, would rise essentially from 15% to whatever a person's top tax rate is. meaning it could go at least
under the scenario that the president wants to 39%. that means from 15% to 39%, that window, that value in between, is what people reinvest in their companies. they reinvest that, many times, in small business, and that's the job creation element. when you make this rate go up, you arbitrarily take away some 700,000 american jobs that need current capital every day, a small business owner reputting that money, reinvesting that money for the life of their business. and this is the part that we believe, as republicans, that we stand on the side of saying we shouldn't lose american jobs just for the sake of fairness. of what the president, what the minority leader is now arguing for of increasing taxes.
he so it's obvious to republicans that -- so it's obvious to republicans what we believe we stand for is creation of jobs and making sure that that capital that's invested in the economy continues. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, the assistant democrat leader, mr. clyburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. clyburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i request permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. clyburn: i thank the gentlelady for yielding me this time. mr. speaker, when the so-called supercommittee failed last year to overcome the obstruction of the tea party republicans and their leader, grover norquist, to achieve a fair and balanced plan for deficit reduction, economic growth, and job creation it would take a
decisive national election to settle the matter. i believe president obama's victory on november 6 was very decisive and pretty definitive. during the campaign president obama very clearly laid out his vision and the american people strongly affirmed his position. the president won all but one of the swing states. 62% of the electoral college, and carried the popular vote by more than 4.5 million votes. democrats added to our numbers in the house and senate, and captured the house popular vote by more than a million votes. in february of 2010, president obama began the process to reduce our deficit by establishing the simpson-bowles commission. since that time, many bipartisan
groups have made recommendations on how to reduce the deficit. and they have all been in agreement. you need a balanced deal that requires shared sacrifice from all americans, including the wealthy. in 2011 we began to reduce the deficit, but we did it entirely through spending cuts. over $1.5 trillion and have asked nothing of the most fortunate. in 2012 the american people spoke. it is time for balance and shired sacrifice, and the first step is to allow -- shared sacrifice, and the first step is it to allow the bush tax cuts for income over $250,000, to expire. but that is bait for another day. now we must do what we agreed on
. extend the tax cuts for everyone on their first $250,000 of income. the proposals put forth by the republicans since the election and their refusal to extend the middle class tax cuts, which we all agree should be extended, are just more of the same obstructionism. the time for posturing is over. it's time for house republicans to accept the express will of the american people and get beyond their pledge to a special interest lobbyist here in washington, d.c. although, frankly, i fail to see how avoiding to cut taxes violates the pledge to never raise taxes. we need to defeat the previous question. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. session: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'd like to remind the gentleman that the
republicans have already passed the bill for the middle class tax cut on august 1 of this year and passed 256-171. we are now waiting for the senate to act on that. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, the vice chairman of the democrat caucus, mr. becerra. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. if you're in the middle class, shouldn't it feel like you're in the middle of america? yet the politics of extremism is pushing the middle class to the very edge. the very edge. our house republican colleagues continue to ignore the calls from the american people to extend middle class tax cuts now
. that politics of extremism is threatening to raise taxes on the middle class by the amount of about $2,200 starting january 1. republicans should once and for all join with democrats and the american public to bring the bipartisan senate-passed middle class tax cut bill to a vote on the house floor. . 97% of small businesses don't see a single tax increase next year. democrats and 2/3 of the american people agree with the growing number of republicans who are telling the republican colleagues, take the 98% deal. take the 98% deal. my friends, this is not the time to put the foot on the
economic recovery that we're beginning to experience, foot on the brake of the economic recovery. it's time to get our work done. remember, colleagues, where we were four years ago. four years ago, november, 2008, our country was hemorrhaging 800,000 american jobs. this november, we got the news 146,000 new jobs. it's time to continue that progress. let's stop abide big pledges to special interests and start abiding by our pledge to the united states of america and the people who elected taos serve the interest of all americans not those of special interests. let's pass the middle class tax cut bill now. >> the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i'd like to just make sure that the speaker that was up here, mr. becerra, understands that on august 1 of this year, we passed a bill to
extend tax cuts for the middle class. 256-171. we've done that. it's now awaiting senate approval. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i'd like to yield three minutes to the democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three mins. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to ethheth -- to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding, i want to thank the chairman of theule -- rules of -- rules committee for his efforts as well. ladies and gentlemen, we talked a lot, correctly, about creating certainty. alleviating uncertainty. alleviating angst among our people and among our economy.
we have an opportunity to bring certainty to a large segment of american that -- segment of america that they will not receive a tax increase on january 1. we have that ability because the united states senate has acted on a bill which will allow us to do that. even if we don't take their bill up, we could take a bill that tim walz has introduced, congressman walz has introduced a bill which will say to the 98% that we've talked about you won't get a tax increase. i think that we have agreement on that across, as the gentleman from texas indicated, we have agreement on that i think there's not anybody here or very, very few at least, on either side of the aisle who doesn't say that those who are making $250,000 or less as families or $200,000 as individuals or less, shouldn't get a tax increase. now there are some who say that
those above shouldn't get a tax increase either, i understand that, but we have disagreement on that the american people are frustrated by the fact that even that on which we have agreement we can't move. they understand we have policy differences. but they're hopeful that when at least we have agreement on an issue we can move it. if we did so, think of the confidence and mr. cole, former -- had your job as chairman of the campaign committee, said let's pass this. let's give the middle class, the working people of america a christmas present. a sense of certainty a sense of self-confidence, a sense of well being that would be good for our economy but certainly good for them individually and as families as well. so i would urge my colleagues on the republican side and my colleagues on the democratic side vote against the previous
question. that's somewhat esoteric. people say what's that mean, vote fens the previous question. that's some political jargon they quse in washington. what it means if, if we vote against the previous question, we will be empowered to bring forward the middle class tax cut bill. and we'll put it on the floor and mr. walz will be our leader on this pause he's put it in the hopper. may i have 30 additional seconds? ms. slaughter: i yield the gentleman another minute. mr. hoyer: we'll put that on the floor and every member of this house, all 433 of us here, 435 members will have the opportunity to say to the american people, yes. yes, on december 12, we're going to tell you that on
january 1, your taxes will not go up. give us that opportunity. give us that opportunity to say, yes, to the american middle class. give us the opportunity to say yes to certainty in our economy. give us the opportunity to say yes, we agree on something and aren't you proud of the fact that when we agree, your congress can act. let's say yes. vote no on the previous question and then vote yes for the middle class. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i do appreciate the gentleman, my dear friend from maryland, who i have not only regular conversations with but enjoy very much, i would once again remind the gentleman
that on august 1 of this year, we passed 256-171, an idea that would be about not losing 700,000 jobs by doing it the way that our friends the democrats want to do it. mr. hoyer: would the gentleman yield for a second? mr. sessions: i yield for 15 seconds. mr. hoyer: it's never wrong to do the right thing twice. mr. sessions: reclaiming my time, it is wrong to lose 700,000 more job. that's the practical effect. the gentleman also, the minority leader was here, wanned to talk about, our speakers all day want to talk about sequestration. sequestration came as a result of a promise a deal, and a -- an agreement that we as republicans and house and senate and the president adepreed upon that we would come to an agreement upon how to cut some spending. the president said it's essential. now they want to back away from the deal.
here's what their deal is. their deal is, among other things, mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that i include in the record a statement from the gentleman, mr. am graves who is chairman of the house committee on small businesses, the new taxes that will take place. here's one we know will happen already under law is that medicare dish payments paid to qualifying hospitals that serve low income patients will be reduced by 75% starting october 1, 2013. -- october 21, 2013. in addition to the $700 billion that will be transferred away from senior care. i know we have an election where we talked about and one person tried to explain, that's not really right. those were to a certain group of people that may be rich. put right here, to low income hospitals. that means we're going to have
hospitals that no longer will serve seniors because their payment rate got cut by 75%. tax increases, tax increases on health care. tax increases as we learned yesterday or last week when it was announced that all insurance plans will now be paying an extra $63. those are passed on to customers, consumers. this is an outrageous government takeover of health care and now what they want to do is diminish another 700,000 jobs. no, sir, we're not going to fall victim to that. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: let me yield myself two seconds to say it is not a government takeover of health care. it will be performed by private insurance companies an i'm deliked to yield two minutes to my colleague and gentleman from new york, mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two
minutes. mr. crowley: thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen of america, this is not a mirage. we are actually here in this building, the u.s. capital -- capitol, america, your congress is in session and we're here to work. yet my republican colleagues refuse to bring up the middle class tax cut bill that is right behind me at this desk. now my colleague from texas can continue to talk about what happened in august of this year. you know, staging votes for the election, that took place. i know the results of the election. when our constituents are concerned -- what our constituents are concerned about is what happens in january, if and when we fail to do our work here now. and also, to expose that the vote that took place in august was a vote to continue the bush era tax cuts. the very same tax cuts that got
us into the mess we are in right now. and they're doing that because they're holding hostage the 98% of americans who receive a tax cut under mr. walz's bill before -- that's at the desk today. and they're holding them hostage to make sure that the 2%, the wealthiest 2% don't get that tax cut. our economy is 70% driven by con -- is consumer driven. that means we -- when the middle class spends more, we all benefit. when the opposite takes place, when they spendless, we all are worse off for it. holding the middle class hostage by threatening to raise their taxes not only hurts the american families but it also hurts america's businesses.
i think we owe it to our constituents to take this one sickle vote, one vote to ensure the middle class won't be held hostage any longer. one vote to give the them the economic certainty they so desperately need now. one vote to keep our middle class spending and investing and creating jobs for american businesses. but we can't do that, ladies and gentlemen of america. unless our republican colleagues allow mr. -- for mr. walz's bill, which is at our desk right now behind me up for a vote on this floor. that's why i will vote against the previous question so we can come back and have an opportunity to include mr. walz's bill in that package. we're here, we're ready, let's vote. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair reminds members to address their comments to the
chair. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: the gentleman from new york, a dear friend of mine, got something wrong. what we're trying to extend is the law that president obama signed into law as a result of bipartisan action two years ago because two years ago, and the economy was better then than it is now, we were trying to extend the tax cuts that president obama was asking us to do and that's what we simply did in august. so it is a president obama last signed bill that we are trying to offer an extension of. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. wauleds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. waums: thank you mr. speaker. -- mr. walz: thank you mechanic. -- mr. speaker. my discharge petition at the
zesk a discharge petition the american people spoke loudly in. we faced an election and the message is clear to me, why do you continue to bicker and make these ka bouquet dance statements with one another when it shouldn't be that difficult. we came out of a constitutional convention, when i asked james madison what the secret to this new government was, compromise, compromise, compromise. to sit here and do what we're doing, not bringing this forward and releasing the tension on the middle class, making sure the economy knows there's stability amongst taxes, is holding our economy back. it's insulting to the american people. s that nation that won two world wars. this is a nation that split the atom. this is a nation that put a man on a moon. this is a nation sending pictures back from mars and curiosity. sign the discharge petition, bring it to the floor, get 435 votes, put it online for 24 hours, send it to the president and by tomorrow a big chuck of
the fiscal cliff is done. don't insult the people with things that aren't true, don't tell them it's not about compromise and don't sit here and pretend like we're working when we're not. they know better, they're smarter, they know. give the american people what they want. stability and a congress that works and let's move on to other pressing issues. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter spm i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. . mr. andrews: there is a lot of disagreement about the future of our country. there is disagreement over how to handle spending, what should be cut, what should be reduced, what should be increased. there is disagreement over how much and when to raise the debt ceiling. these are very important questions. there is a disagreement over
whether taxes should or should not go up on income over 250,000 a year. our friends on the other side in good faith believe it's a bad idea. we know the economic history tells us that the last time the rates were at the level of 39.6%, 600,000 new businesses were formed and 23 million new jobs were created. we think it works. but there's something that everyone says they agree on. and that is that income up to $250,000 a year should not have a tax increase. everyone on both sides says that when january 1 shows up on the calendar, there shouldn't be a tax increase on the middle class people in this country. that their first paycheck in the first five days of the new year should not have more taken out of it. so as not to hurt our economy or those families.
we all say we agree on this. it seems to me the right course is to put a bill on the floor that says exactly that. that says that for income of less than $250,000 a year the tax rates for everyone american should stay where they are now and there should not be a tax increase. my friend from texas says that the majority did that in july. that's not quite right. what the majority did in july was to keep the rates low for people making less than $250,000, but also keep them low for people making more than $250,000. we just don't agree with that. why don't we take the 98% that we agree on and vote on it right now. i would ask for 15 more seconds. ms. slaughter: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. andrews: i thank my friend. if we don't do this, 19 days from today, 98% of the american people, really 100% of the american people get a tax
increase. they have more taken out of their checks. and it will hurt shoppers in the stores, diners in the restaurants, it will hurt jobs across the country. so why don't we take the 98% that we agree on right now and put it on the floor right now. by voting no on the previous question, that's what we can do and should do. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i am delighted to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, member of the rules committee, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the ranking member on the rules committee, ms. slaughter, for yielding me the time. mr. speaker, i regret that my republican friends are turning this houches -- house of representatives into a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. the bill that we are talking about right now on the house
floor basically gives the majority who run this house the authority to bring up suspension bills from now until december 28. suspension bills for those who don't know are bills really of not much consequence by and large. they are bills that most of the time could pass by a voice vote. last night in the rules committee, the distinguished ranking member, ms. slaughter, suggested that instead of doing suspension bills we ought to be doing bills of some consequence. like re-authorizing the violence against women's act. doing postal reform. doing a farm bill. or we are talking right now is passing a middle class tax cut extension. those are real things that mean real things to real people in this country. and yet we are not talking about any of those things. we are talking today about basically doing not much of anything between now and december 28. last night in the rules committee we were told, well, we are trying to negotiate a deal on this fiscal cliff. the reality is that will there
are few members of this house who probably are in discussions with the white house about trying to work out a deal, but the vast majority here, democrats and republicans, are being asked to do nothing. last night we came back and we voted on a -- to approve the journal, that's all we had to do last night. to approve the journal. we haven't re-authorized the violence against women act. we haven't extended middle class tax cuts. we haven't re-authorized the farm bill. i could go on and on, but we had to come back to vote on a -- have a journal vote last night. the time has come for us to get back to work. the election was clear. the election was clear. the views advocated by governor romney anti-republican majority were rejected. the president won comfortably, and we did -- democrats won more seats in the senate, we won more seats here in the house. i think it's a pretty clear message that the american people think that we ought to do what's right in terms of balancing the
budget and that is ask the donnell trumps of the world to pay a little bit more. we have already -- donald trumps of the world to pay a little bit more. we have already cut $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending. a lot of those programs help people. $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending. we have already cut and my friends are saying but donald trump can't pay one penny more. give me a break. give me a break. this is about fairness. this is about justice. this is about doing the right thing. and at a very -- at the very minimum we should be debating now not suspension bills but we should be debating the extension of the middle class tax cuts. that is why we need to vote no on the previous question, to bring -- to allow us to bring this bill to the floor. my republican friends say they agree with us in the middle class tax cut, fine, let's vote it. vote overwhelmingly for it. you don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. let's give the middle class certainty. vote no on the previous question. i yield back the balance of my
time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i appreciate the gentleman, my friend, who formerly was the vice chairman of the rules committee, i'd like to remind him that when he was the vice chairman of the committee, almost half of the 3,075 bills considered under suspension in the 110th, 11th congress were for post offices and federal buildings namings or resolutions or things just to -- like national pollenators week. what we are trying to talk about is at the end of the year since we are going to be here waiting for the big deal, we are going to make sure that we can take ideas that still exist and -- mr. mcgovern: will the gentleman yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: let me yield mr. mcgovern 10 seconds. mr. mcgovern: when we were in charge we were able to walk and chew gum at the same time. we have had some pretty important and substantive legislation that i'm proud of. we should be talking about real things that matter to real
people right now instead of just extending the suspension authority. i yield back. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'd pleased to yield one minute to gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question. the message from my constituents and from the american people is loud and clear and that's to extend the middle class tax cuts now. and republicans are simply holding hostage tax cuts for 98% of americans and 97% of small businesses to give more takes to the -- tax breaks to the wealthiest americans. democrats have a commonsense solution and we can't wait around any longer as real proposals languish while the house g.o.p. gets its act together. spearheaded by congressman walz, the democrats filed the walz discharge petition to automatically bring to the floor the senate-passed middle class tax cuts which the president has said he will sign immediately. and overwhelmingly members have signed this discharge petition.
my point is, we don't have any time to waste. we could pass this extension of the middle class tax cuts now as we find a bold and balanced and fair agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. but there is a consensus that we do this. so why are the republicans holding this hostage? once again, let us vote no on the previous question. let's bring this middle class tax cut up now. it is the solution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. session: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i have no further requests for time, mr. speaker. i wonder if my colleague is prepared to close. mr. sessions: i thank the gentlewoman for asking. i have no further speakers and would allow her that opportunity and then i will close. ms. slaughter: thank you very much. mr. speaker, we should be doing one thing today and that's passing the continuation of tax cuts for the middle class. the american people couldn't be more united in this support for
tax cut and there is no reason for delay. the senate has already passed the bill and we can take up now, it's here at the desk. members across the aisle agree, that we must not let those middle class taxes go up. with such common ground why would the majority waste another minute before ensuring that the taxes will not go up on the middle class? the answer isn't clear to me. i can't fathom it. but if the majority won't take action, we will. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i'm going to offer an amendment to the rule that says two things. one, first we will pass the bill to extend the middle class tax cut. and second, that we will pass legislation that will avoid the fiscal cliff and the chaos that would ensue. and i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment to the rule in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on
the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no to the previous question so that he we may put our rule on the floor. i urge a no vote on the rule. if we are unsuccessful. and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from new york, for this vigorous debate that we had on the floor today. mr. speaker, top to bottom the leadership of the democratic party has been on record here again today saying they want to increase taxes on small business. they want to increase taxes on family-owned businesses and people who get up every day and want to employ people and work harder. small business is the engine of our economy. and our friends, the democrats, want to punish them through taxes for fairness issues.
well, i'd like to say, mr. speaker, we got a bunch of problems in this country and that's why the fiscal cliff, this thing is not the result of taxes, it's as a result of spending and too many people not having jobs to be able to pay in not just their taxes but to be able to sustain our economy. and so we have millions of people that are unemployed and drawing unemployment compensation. we are seeing disabilities rise at a rate of 16% every year. one thing which we note that just before president obama took effect, white house figures show the federal budget was $2.9 trillion. next year's estimate is going to be $3.8 trillion. this is a 31% increase in spending in just four years. we have someone as the
president, our great president, who is hung up on taxing and spending. what we need is a house of representatives that's hung up on jobs and job creation. the american product. entrepreneurship. creativity. competition with the world. the next new great ideas. not that will come from this body but from the creativity of the american people. this is what republicans are trying to keep alive in our country. the idea of self-reliance and working hard and taking care of people that are not just in your house but are in your neighborhood. your cities. our states, the vibrancy of our country. and we are headed over the fiscal cliff after four years of leadership from this president who is running, running directly to the fiscal cliff. has even said, and secretary of treasury said, we don't mind
jumping off this cliff. mr. speaker, we should not be having that kind of attitude. we should have the attitude that we are for everybody. we want to be for american entrepreneurship and especially small business because it's small business, family farms, small business electrical companies, people who put their name on the buildings, creativity. people get up to go to work every day. that's who we are going to hurt. we are not just going to hurt them, we are going to hurt their business families. people who they have had employed, small communities, large communities, but small business which is the engine of our economy. that's really who we are going to punish. lastly, we should not do it at this time just like we should not have two years ago, but i guess we were aiming for an election at that time and now the president does not have one ahead of him. mr. speaker, i urge yes vote on
the rule and yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those requesting the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. . pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone votes on which the yeas and nays are ordered. recorded votes on which -- recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentlelady from west virginia seek recognition?
>> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 5817 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5817, a bill to amend the gramm leech act to provide an amendment to the privacy notice act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from west virginia, mrs. capito, and the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, each will control 20 mince. mrs. capito: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this will. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. capito: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capito: this bill addresses issues some members had about the bill, the bill before the house today is substantially the same as the
legislation that passed the house by voice vote in april 20, 10, weand actually debated this bill a week ago. i would like to thank the sponsors of the bill, of h.r. 5817, mr. luetkemeyer, mr. sherman, mrs. maloney and mr. capuano and mr. frank for agreeing to this language. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california -- the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. sherman: we passed substantially the same language two years ago by voice vote this bill has been amended by unanimous consent so as to be virtually identical with what was passed two years ago. it now has the support of the ranking member. i urge an aye vote and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to yield three
minutes or as much time as he needs to consume to the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, the primary sponsor of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, chairman capito, for yielding. i rise in strong support of the amended version of h.r. 5817, the eliminate privacy confusion act. under current law, financial institutions are required to provide annual privacy notices explaining information sharing practices to customers. banks and credit unions are required to give these notices even if their privacy notices have not changed. this creates not only waste for financial institutions but confusion among and increased cost to consumers. in his book entitled "the financial crisis and free market cure,"ellis reports that one bank offered at the end of its privacy notice to pay $100 to any customer that read the
privacy notice in full. year after -- only one person kid. let's think about this cost for a second. this outdated requirement doesn't cost only in postage alone but also costs in compliance costs, cost of supplies, printing fees and man hours. i talked to one community bank in my district that said they spent roughly 70 cents per disclosure. with a minimum of 250,000 accounts and customers this bank spends $175 a year on this requirement. it may not seem like a lot of money to some of my colleagues but i can tell you $175,000 is a lot of money to small institutions like the one in my district especially when these costs are passed on to the customer this legislation will only remove the gramm leech reilly policy if it the institution has not changed its
the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from texas. >> i ask unanimous consent to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6190. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 485, h.r. 6190, a bill to direct the administrator of the environmental protection agency to allow for the distribution, sale, and consumption in the united states of remaining inventories of over the counter cft epinephrine inhalers.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, will each control 20 minutes. mr. burgess: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: h.r. 6190. s that bill i wish we did not have to consider today. over the past several years i have repeatedly asked the food and drug administration, the environmental protection agency and even the white house, the president himself, for answers to questions that i and other members of the committee have as to why the administration has refused to grant a waiver to sell the existing stock of over the counter epinephrine inhalers. only last summer and because the committee was moving legislation at the time did the food and drug administration finally provide at least some sort of response, albeit one that was entirely unsatisfactory. under the rules known as the montreal protocol, certain chemical propellants used in a
number of medical and cosmetic devices were to be phased out of a number of years. the c.f.c. used in epinephrine inhalers here is one of the one that was one of those propellants. knowing that the manufacturer of these over the counter inhalers, the manufacturer of these over the counter inhalers has worked on a replacement inhaler only to meet with stone walling through the food and drug administration and requests for more study swoose the device. though the food and drug administration claims they are awaiting an application from the company, the company counters that the food and drug administration once again continues to move the goal post. regardless of the finger pointing, mr. speaker, and there is much of it surrounding this issue, the fact remains, there is no viable alternative for the over the counter purchase by an asthmatic suffering from an acute attack. we've heard a company is act --
is about to market a device and there is a device available without a prescription but it's behind the counter. in other words, if the pharmacy is open but the pharmacist is not there you cannot purchase this device. i know this firsthand because it happened to me one evening in -- while we were home on one of the district work periods. the new product uses a nebraska ewealizer rather than a propole lant. it's a little more comple it -- propellant. it's a little more complicated, nevertheless it is available. but the cost differential is significant when compared with the old over the counter c.f.c. propole lant epinephrine inhaler. the committee and the congress should be on the side of putting more available products into the hands of patients and allow them to effectively manage their medical issues. instead, opponents of this legislation hide behind false claims of safety. the safety and efficacy of epinephrine.
mr. speaker, i would point out that i have an an -- i have been an asthmatic my entire life. i have utilized rescue inhalers for a long time. epinephrine, the active pharmaceutical ingredient in an asthma inhaler, has been around for 60 years. there's not been a question of the safety and efficacy. if so, we know the f.d.a. has the power to remove a drug or device they say is not safe or effective. they have given their stamp of approval to epinephrine over the last 60 years. there continue to be dozens of epinephrine based treatments for asthma used by doctors and medical professionals. though opponents will claim they are opposed to the bill because epinephrine is not safe, this claim is simply not true. there are currently over one million units of these inhalers sitting in a warehouse in california, not helping patients currently suffering
from an asthma attack, not available for a rescue treatment for someone who cannot get their breath. it's unconscionable to allow them to sit gathering dust when it could be used to provide relief to america's asthmatic patients. moreover, the companies committed to donating proceeds from the sale to charity to remove any possible profit motive from their request to sell these products. this is not about allowing a pane to continue to sell their product, it's about not allowing a regulatory agency to unreasonably restrict the access of america's asthmatics to a useful product. i wish more companies would come forward with a viable over the counter asthma inhalers so asthmatics could have more and more choices instead of the costly emergency room visit at 2:00 a.m. this bill is about allowing asthmatics to continue to get relief during ans a mar attack, to continue to have an emergency rescue inhaler available when they need it,
when they deem that they need it. not when the administrator of the e.p.a. says they need it, not when the administrator of the f.d.a. says they need it. members of congress spend a lot of time talking about how much they care about the plight of patients and asthmatics in particular and decrying the high cost of health care. this bill returns even if it's just far limited time, this bill returns a safe, effective, and inexpensive treatment into the hands of patients suffering from asthma. one that has been in use for decades. for me at least, the issue is clear. let's side with patients on this issue. let's stop this senseless war on asthmatics, the administration has waged for the last three years. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. the gentleman from california. >> i claim time in opposition to this bill and i want to -- mr. waxman: and i want to yield
to the ranking member of the committee, mr. pallone of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker, i thank my colleague, the ranking member from california, mr. waxman. congress gave f.d.a. the responsibility of deciding whether specific types of inhalers containing ozone depleting substances are essential uses and need to remain on the market. f.d.a. has established an open and orderly process for making this determination. 13 types of inmail -- inhalers were phased out. the remaining two are scheduled for phase out at the end of the 2013. f.d.a. determined in 2008 that prime teen mist was not an -- that primatene mist was not an essential use. they said there are no barriers to making epinephrine inhalers
that do not use c.f.c.'s. they set a phaseout date of 2011, one year longer than initially proposed. it approved the label for primatene mist indicates -- indicating it would not be available after 2011. it has not been available for the past 11 months this bill would intervene to put it pack on the market. . a loping list of public health groups, and patient advocates oppose this bill. they do not believe that returning prime teen mist to the market is in the best interest of patients with asthma or the public health. the following organizations, mr. speaker, wrote to members of the house opposing this bill. the american lung association, the american thoracic society, the american academy of pediatrics, the asthma and allergy foundation of america,
mothers of asthmatics. i could go on. there are eight other public health organizations on this one letter alone. i'm not aware of any public health organization that supports this bill. and when f.d.a. officials briefed members, they expressed many of the same concerns about patient confusion and primatene mist no longer being the standard care for patients. let's be clear, every public health group and patient advocacy group that looked at the bill concluded this is a bad idea. congress shouldn't override f.d.a.'s regular process if doing so would cause significant patient confusion and undermine public health. that's common sense. i would say that even if we pass this bill, it would not lead to the widespread availability of primatene mist sought by the opponents. according to armstrong, between two million and three million people used it before the phaseout.
but fewer than 2.5 million remain in the inventory. that mean as many as half of all primatene mist would not be able to obtain one inhaler if they were allowed to sell off the inventory. that's if the drug stores would carry it. retailers may decide not to sell inventory units because the units will start to expire in january. that's only a few weeks from now, mr. speaker. so the real effect of this bill would be to provide a regulatory earmark to armstrong rather than a rescue inhaler that would be available in the middle of the night to someone suffering from an asthma attack. i don't know what else i can say. this is a bad bill. i urge my colleagues to oppose it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself one minute. i would point out that the f.d.a. has not retracted the use for the short-term use of a rescue inhaler in the treatment
of acute asthmatic attacks. that just simply has not happened. to say that congress is now seeking to overrule the f.d.a. is just simply preposterous because that is not the facts on the table right now. regulatory earmark, come on. give me a break. i would welcome another companies into the marketplace that wanted to create a low cost, effective, convenient treatment for asthmatics who need an acute respiratory relief when there is meds, that they take on a chronic basis either are not working or for whatever reason a flareup has occurred. i'm an asthma patient. i'm on asthma medicine. in the product information provided to patients, on the long-term medicine, a statement this is not intended as an acute -- rescue device for an acute attack. for that you need something that was previously available over the counter.
there's no reason for congress to tell patients -- i was astounded by the elitism at the table in front of us by the e.p.a. when they told us that they know better than america's asthma patients. come on, this is the land of liberty. let's give patients the devices they need to manage their illness. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. whackman: i yield myself such time as -- mr. waxman: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: my colleagues, this is a bill that is special for one company to sell off the batches of the primatene mist that they have on stock. this is a product that's not on the market now. it was taken off the market. and there are subtutes on the market that the public health and medical groups say is far better and far safer. there are a large number of organizations that have come to
the floor on this bill to oppose it. the committee, energy and commerce committee, heard expert medical testimony that primatene mist is not safe or recommended for treating asthma. we have a chart here. these are the groups that opposed this bill. i urge you to vote no. the lung association, thoracic society, american academy of pediatrics, asthma and allergy foundation. all the people involved in health are saying they don't want this drug on the market. it will only confuse asthma patients. it is not the safest drug that they could have. the gentleman from texas has said, take it off the market. it is off the market. it hasn't been taken off because of safety. but it is not recommended by the medical community. there is another group here called the alliance for responsible atmospheric polcy. i would like to indicate some of the organization that is are part of that alliance.
some of the major corporations in this country. i want to show a chart of those who are in favor of this bill. armstrong pharmaceuticals. the one company that will benefit from this bill because they'll be able to sell off the reserves of their product. is that in the best interest of the patients? is that what congress ought to be doing? passing a special earmark bill to favor one company? to be able to take the rest of its stock and sell it to people? we do have a food and drug administration, and we do have an environmental protection agency. and we have given -- delegated to them the responsibility to protect the public health, make sure that drugs are safe and effective. and this primatene mist was supposed to come off the market and it was given an additional year. other companies were also going to have to come off the market.
they knew that and they are not on the market now. so why should we take one company's drug and put it back on the market so they could sell off the products that they still have in their backlog? those companies are against this bill. as you might imagine. they said overturn an established regulatory framework to directly benefit just one company, armstrong. over the years more than a dozen types of inhalers containing c.f.c.'s have been phased out. but these companies say, why should we do something special for only one company? we are talking about not just health groups, but drug companies like glazz could he smithkline. they oppose this bill because it provides one company with special treatment that none of these other companies receive. there is no reason for this
bill. this is a drug that is already off the market. there are substitutes being developed. there are substitutes already on the market. i don't think we ought to be using the suspension calendar of all places, all procedures to give a special deal to just one company. i urge members to oppose the bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: the ranking member spoke of a group called the alliance for -- i yield myself one minute. the ranking member spoke of a group called the alliance for principle atmospheric -- sensible atmospheric polcy. i wish this was sensible. this is the most nonsensical i have ever encountered. america's asthma patients are not blowing a hole in the ozone above antarctica. i get the fact that mr. waxman and i have to give up our hair spray. i get that. too much c.f.c.'s, you got it. i get the fact that our underarm
deodorent had too many c.f.c.'s. but we are talking about an effective treatment for a very vulnerable group of patients. 2:00 in the morning, someone who has asthma who might have run out of their medicines or encountered something that caused their airways to react, what choice do they have? they go to the emergency room, spend $1,500 for a breathing treatment. this is not something that was held behind the counter by the pharmacist. this was out on the open shelf available to anyone at any hour of the day or night. asthma patients need access to this type of medication. i would welcome the fact that other companies would want to create a low cost available product for asthmatics to use as a rescue inhaler. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i want to address some of these issues my sever and then i'll yield to others. there is an environmental problem along with this medical
problem. the environmental problem is that there is a deterioration of the upper ozone layer. the united states under presidents george h.w. bush negotiated international treaty called the montreal protocol to get those products off the market that add clora floor yar carbons which causes environmental damage. so my friend from texas is right. we can't get hair spray or deodorant that has thepropelant that has been taken off the market. no one's arguing we should let them come back on the market to sell off their products. there are substitutes. so my hair is in place because i don't need those products any loaninger. -- any longer. my friend from texas is handling his deyodorant problem adequately. the -- deodorant problem adequately. there are other problems that the people in the medical professions say is superior and they say the primatene mist can
lead to damage and become a threat to health. so why are we going to take this one drug and put it back on the market? with those comments i now yield three minutes to my good friend from the state of michigan, the dean of the house, mr. dingell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. dingell: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dingell: i thank my good friend for yielding time. neither he nor i need hair spray. so we could approach thaffer matter with some serenity. but i want to say here i yield to no one in this chamber over what has been done or what i have done on food and drug and safety for the american consuming pub lech. i am the author of the provision that is require food and drug to only market those things which are safe and effective. they don't like this they can
take it off the market on that ground. they have not chosen to do so. the only reason is going off the market is because of the fact that it bothers the folk who want the montreal protocol to go into place. now, let's take a lell bet of a look at it. tsh-teak a little bit of a look at it. there are a piddling amount of c.f.c.'s that will be released in that because these inhalers are small. they have a few millie leaders -- mili leaders -- millie leiters ofpropelant. it is efficacious. i want to tell you a little bit. the gentleman from texas has talked about what happens when you have these problems as an asthmatic. my old dad was a -- lived through his life with about half
a lung. i listened to him every night up walking around gasping like a fish on a rock. because he couldn't get air. there are a lot of people who have used primatene mist because they thought it worked. and if that is so in fact it does work because it gives relief to people who are sick. it is bad, food and drug can take it off the market because it is unsafe. that is not the reason it is off the market. it is the montreal protocol. let us consider the fact there are people out there who need this substance. i hear it's going to benefit one company. the current manufacturer. that manufacturer is not going to make 10 cents on this deal and the reason is very simple. the profits and the benefits that are going to be generated by these sales of primatene mist
are going to go to charity. that's where they are going. who we are helping is the people who have need of this. and if you haven't had a breath, if you haven't had a situation where you couldn't get your breath, you don't know the terrors that exist there. and you don't know the kind of terrors my old dad had when i listened to him walking up and down at night, every night, gasping to get a breath of air. there's no primatene mist in those days, so there was no relief for him. . there's nothing on the market that matches the price. some of these things that they have that they're saying are going to be available are possibly going to be available in a little bit. possibly not. and they also are big. so big they are not going to be
readily available for someone who has the need. and it might be helpful if they could put it on wheels so the fellow could tow it behind him. primatene mist will be there when they need it. and people to have that particular medication. it will be available to them. i say make it available to the people. there is no riskality. this is a safe substance. if it worked, food and drug would have taken it off the market because it was either unsafe or inefficacious. so having said those things, let us support the bill. it's a good bill. the opposition of other manufacturers is to be expected. they simply want to cut a fat hog by making profits by selling their competitive devices. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i yield myself a
minute. the dean of the house described the amount of c.f.c. released in the atmosphere as a piddling amount. food and drug described it in the federal register november 19, 2008. they described that as less than .1% of the total global production of c.f.c. so for the purposes of education of the body, i did want to provide that information as to a definition of piddling. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i'm pleased to yield to the gentlelady from california, an important member of the energy and commerce committee, ms. castor, five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: five minutes. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for five minutes. ms. castor: i thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. madam speaker, there are a number of reasons that h.r. 6190 is poor public policy, but i'd like to focus on just one and that is the unfair advantage that this bill will
grant to a single business to the detriment of other businesses and manufacturers. and in fact the congress has received a letter from the international pharmaceutical aerosol consortium. on behalf of the international pharmaceutical aerosol consortium for those who treat respiratory illness such as asthma and constructive pulmonary disease, i write to you in on significance to h.r. 6190. ipax members, including astry zenica, glaxosmithkline and many other manufacturers, they say they strongly oppose efforts within the house of representatives to lift the december 31, 2011, ban on the c.f.c. based epinephrine, primatene mist, because such
will not help asthma patients and it's contrary to the united states an important and longstanding commitment to international treaties. they point out this has been ongoing for two decades. the companies involved in international manufacturers, national manufacturers have known about this for a long time. they say the only possible beneficiary of the reversal of the ban on primatene mist will be its manufacture would stamp to garner a financial windfall if its limited stocks are sold. granting extraordinary unwarranted special treatment to a single company would send an extremely negative signal to manufacturers that responded to the u.s. government's call many years ago to be a partner in meeting our commitments. similar, prior requests for deadline release have been firmly denied by all of the relevant agencies. now here's the problem. i was contacted by a florida company some months ago. part of the early rationale for
this bill was there was no alternative, but the florida manufactured that played by the rules called me up. they said, we hear about this hearing on capitol hill. do you know that we're manufacturing an alternative to primatene mist that will be over the counter and it will be affordable? nefron pharmaceuticals had a hand-held battery operated device to allow asthma patients to inhale something similar to epinephrine and primatene mist. it is readily available for walgreens.com, cvs.com, and a national whole seller, smith drug, a wholesaler. they are doing a national tv campaign now. they have starter kits. this is available so that rationale, that early rationale there is no alternative du not exist any more. -- does not exist any more. but here's the important part. we can't have congress
disadvantage other companies that have played by the rules. this bill would seriously undermine the investments like companies who have developed alternatives and solutions to short-term asthma relief. congress should not pick winners and losers. colleagues, we repeatedly heard the rationale for this bill. there was no alternative. that rationale is incorrect. it's inaccurate. congress should not pull the rug from under companies that have followed the rules and expect regulatory certainty in order to benefit another single company. i urge you to vote no on h.r. 6190. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam speaker, may i inquire how much each side has and which side has the right to close? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 4 1/2 minutes remaining.
the gentleman from texas has 12 minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas has the right to close. mr. waxman: madam speaker, i yield the balance of my time to myself. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: i just want to point out what the allergy and asthma networks, mothers of yazz matics, the people -- asmatics, the people dealing with this problem, they say this act gives preferential and exclusive exceptions and financial benefits to armstrong pharmaceuticals, primatene mist is specifically not recommended for the treatment of asthma and the national institutes of health, nhbli asthma guidelines. they don't see a reason why this should come back on the market. and the same point of view is expressed by the others that are the professionals that treat asthma patients. the effect of this bill will be to take the inventory that this
company has and allow it to go back on the market from january to august of 2013 so they can sell it off. it's not going back on the market. it's just going to allow the inventory to be sold off. and one of that inventory is expiring in terms of its efficacy so people won't get some primatene mist back on the market that's not going to do them any good. and there are better alternatives. this is a special interest bill. it's a bad bill. it's bad for public health. it will confuse asthma patients. it provides special treatment to one company at the expense of its competitors. it's opposed by the people involved in health, the people who have asthma, the people who treat asthma, the manufacture of drugs for asthma. we don't have to go back to a drug that's been outdated already and put it back on the market so this company can sell
off their inventory. they say they're going to give all the money to charity. well, i don't know what kind of tax breaks they get. i don't see why we should let them sell off their inven fore, especially an inventory that's not going to be any good beyond august of next year. this is a bill we ought to oppose, and i urge all my colleagues to vote no on this legislation. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: madam speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. if advocating for america's asmatic patients is a -- ashmatic patients is bad, guilty as charge. madam speaker, we heard so much stuff today that it's almost difficult to refute every point that's been brought up. look, we heard from the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee that the f.d.a. had deemed the active pharmaceutical ingredient in primatene mist to be dangerous.
what is the active ingredient in primatene mist? it's epinephrine. we heard from the gentlelady from florida that a product in her district was a good product and was available. what's the active pharmaceutical ingredient in there? epinephrine. the difference is the propelent which is the object of our discussion here today. now, i will tell you as an yazz -- asthmatic patient, i will just tell you, the replacement propelent that is available in albutte roll inhalers does -- albuter ol inhalers does not -- go to the facebook page who one after the other will delineate why c.f.c. worked for them when
h.f.a. containing products does not. what about epinephrine, there is an ultrasonic nebraska lieser. a unique approach that frankly i welcome. let me stress, madam speaker, although this product, epinephrine, is available without a prescription, it's not generally available over the counter. and i know this because of my own experience. number one, i had to call several pharmacies back in texas before i found a wal-mart that carried it. after finishing some event late at night i stopped to a wal-mart near my home that i knew they had the product there. i went in but the pharmacy was closed. the pharmacist was gone. now, you can buy a vast amount of anything else over the counter in the pharmacy, off the pharmacy shelves in wal-mart. in fact, you used to be able to pick up two primatene mist inhalers for $30 before january 1 of this year. but no asthmanephrine was
available. it's behind the counter, not over the counter. what does that mean as a functional issue? if an asthmatic patient said, oh, my goly i should have never ridden that horse, i should have never petted that cat, i cannot breathe and they go down to the wal-mart, the wal-mart's open. the store's lit up. the shelves are full of product. but asthmanephrine is not available for that patient. they have to come back at 9:00 when the pharmacist is on duty when they can dispense the product to them. there is a cost differential between asthmanephrine and primatene mist. the cost for the starter kit for asthmanephrine is right at $50. in my district it was $49.96.
a box full of the pacts for the medicine that is necessary to place in the machine to dispense costs $27 for a box of 30. i am not good at math. that's about 92 cents, 93 cents per packet. one packet per treatment. how many treatments are in this? i don't know. i never used one completely. it's advertised to be between 250 and 275 treatments. the cost differential a little bit less than six cents for this, 93 cents for this for treatment -- per treatment episode. not a big deal in days you're talking about medicines that might cost $250, $280 a month for maintenance therapy for asthma. yeah, the cost is negligible but for some people it's not. for some people that represents a significant expenditure. this i can carry in my pocket. i can bring it to the house
floor. if someone is smoke -- smoking a cigar, i can take this. this is harder to carry in your pocket. there is a convenience factor. mr. dingell mentioned that when he talked about preserving products for patients with asthma. a little less user friendly to go through the multiple steps for asthmanephrine as opposed to squeezing the primatene mist bottle and dispensing the medicine where it needs to go in a patient's chest. the other over-the-counter products are absolutely not equivalent to primatene. primatene tablets are instid available. what is in them? ephedrine. yeah, it will help them if they are in a tight spot with your
breathing. it's about 30 minutes away after you take the pills. and you want to talk about something that makes your heart race. it's not primatene mist but the primatene tablets do it every time it's tried. madam speaker, here's the real issue. should we let elites at the federal agency dictate to our asthma patients in our districts what they can and can't have? this is one of those instances where i say the federal agency has gone too far. . rsm waxman said the f.d.a. didn't meet the ban primatene mist because the e.p.a. had already done it. by what authority does the e.p.a. regulate medicines i prescribe for my patients? there is no such authority unless i missed something and we gave them authority where none existed before. this is about common sense. this is about doing the right thing for the american people. we take away their toilets, we took away their light bulbs. for heaven's sakes let's not
take away their asthma inhalers. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate is concluded. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 190. so many as are in favor say aye. -- 6190. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the gentlewoman from florida. ms. castor: i was going to ask for a roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady request the yeas and nays? ms. castor: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: how many people rose? madam chair, i withdraw the question.
the speaker pro tempore: a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. the gentleman from texas. million burgess: i ask that members have five lemming days -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: and include extraneous material on h.r. 6190. thank you. the gentleman from new york rise. >> madam speaker, i move that
the house suspend the rules and pass s. 3542. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 3542, an act to authorize the assistant secretary of homeland security, transportation security administration to modify screening requirements for checked baggage arriving from preclearance airports, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york, mr. king, and the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. king: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. king: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: madam speaker, i rise in support of s. 3542, the no hassle flying act of 2012. at the outset let me commend the gentleman from illinois, congressman walsh, for
introducing this measure. it passed the house in september by voice vote. madam speaker, this bill gives t.s.a. the discretion to determine if checked luggage arriving from a foreign airport with an aviation security preclearance agreement must be rescreened before it continues on to a connecting flight inside the u.s. the bill explicitly defines such an agreement as one that delineates and implements security standards and protocols that are determined by t.s.a. in coordination to be come pranl to those in the u.s. and therefore sufficiently effective to enable passengers to deplane into sterile areas of airports in the united states. this bill does not diminish aviation security but rather streamlines the security process and allows t.s.a. to expend resources on baggage that has not already been screened to u.s. security standards. it also supports t.s.a.'s ongoing efforts to implement risk-based, intelligence driven security initiatives.
t.s.a. administrative piss tell -- pistel requested this authority to go beyond our borders to improve robust measures. i commend him for his leadership and efforts to improve aviation security. in addition to streamlining security, this bill will incentivize our foreign partners to improve the technology that they use to screen checked luggage we the matly should increase the level of security of inbound flights to the united states. the legislation will reduce the number of missed connections and other hassles associated with redundant baggage screening that can become barriers to international travel and tour esm. it's a win-win for the airline industry and t.s.a. by shortening the time necessary for transit and transfer. i urge the adoption of the bill and common sense of this bipartisan bill, and i reserve the balance of my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: madam speaker, i rise in strong support of s.
3542, the no hassle flying act of 2012. and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i support this legislation because it represents a commonsense proposal to make air travel more convenient and has the potential to enhance efficiency. currently all baggage arriving at u.s. airports must be rescreened prior to being loaded on a connecting flight. this is true even for travelers arriving from designated preclearance airports where the passenger themselves do not need to be screened again because d.h.s. has verified that screening at those airports is at least as effective as our own. this dynamic places an unnecessary burden on t.s.a. screeners, the airlines, and the flying public who, on occasion, arrive at their final destination only to find that
their baggage has not. as i stated when we considered the house companion to s. 3442 in september, where can we -- where we can eliminate duplicative screenings without compromising security, i will lend my support. i commend senator clowbucher for her work on this legislation and thank her for including important provisions i requested that required t.s.a. to coordinate with u.s. customs and border protection when determining what baggage must be rescreened in the united states. accordingly, i support this legislation that the obama administration proposed and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. king: madam speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from illinois, mr. walsh. let me take this opportunity to commend him, the outstanding job he's done during his time of service on the committee. .
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for such time he may consume. mr. walsh: thank you, madam speaker. the i thank chairman king. earlier this year i introduced the no hassle flying act legislation, brought to our attention by the transportation security administration. senators clow by car from minnesota and blunt from missouri introduced my language in the senate and this is the bill we are considering today. over the past decade t.s.a. has classified 14 foreign airports as precleared for security purposes. these airports are routinely checked by t.s.a. to ensure their screening procedures for both people and bags meet the high standards of the united states. as such, passengers originating from these airports and returning to the united states, are not required to go through physical security checks again. unfortunately their bags are not excluded and must be rescanned and rechecked. if you ever had to do this during a layover at chicago
o'hare, newark, new jersey, or miami ivent national, you know it's not -- miami national, you know it's not an easy task. the bill before us allows to waive the screening requirements as well. giving t.s.a. this kiped of flexibility will allow them to free up time and resources to focus on higher risk baggage and passengers and will also make traveling easier for those coming in and out of the united states. i want to thank my colleagues on the homeland security committee, especially chairman king, and their staffs for the work they put into this bill, along with senators klobuchar and blunt for bringing this to our attention. i urge all members to vote in favor of this commonsense, bipartisan bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: madam speaker, i yield such time as she may consume to the ranking member of the subcommittee on
transportation security on the committee on homeland security, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for such time as she may consume. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the ranking member of the committee and it's always good to be able to thank him, madam speaker, for his leadership and service. i think we are safer because members of congress like congressman thompson, the ranking member, and our chairman, congressman king, have on a number of occasions come together around the idea of american security. i want to express my appreciation for having been able to serve on the committee for a number of years. it gives me also a moment to say to the speaker, or to acknowledge congresswoman emerson, for her service as well. and to thank you so very much for being a person who loves
america. i think that should be our litmus test when we rise on this floor for those of us who love this country. i as the ranking member and having served as the chairwoman of this committee in previous terms know how important it is to provide safety in the transportation modes for the united states of america. this bill, no hassle flying act of 2012, and thank the sponsor, both in the house and senate, provides a msh sure of recognition and -- measure of recognition and acceptance of foreign countries who making efforts to have consistent security procedures and technology to have a easier travel process for passengers who are deplanning in the united states, going on to another domestic destination.
so i want to acknowledge the senator from minnesota, which had this legislation passed in the senate and to our house sponsor as well. what the basis of this legislation is is by relieving the need to rescreen every piece of baggage arriving in the united states, countries where we have strong bonds and screening agreements in place, efficiencies will be realized and our screeners can focus more attention on those items we know least about. let me in terms of screeners, let me correct that and say the transportation security administration personnel. that is probably one of the most maligned groups of american public servants and those who work in the cause of the united states and the safety and security of the united states, but at their best, when they are trained as i have worked so hard
to insist on, increase their professional development training, we made great strides with administrator pistel and previous ones, i can see the sense of pride and respect that this group of americans have for their job. and so when we speak of screening we are talking about serious work that has to be done to ensure the safety and security of america. we want to be able to work with our allies. this is not an immigration reform initiative, but is similar to the visa waiver programs where we have a list of countries that we feel confident that their procedures are equal to not only ours but their policies, their alliance with us and we believe that their citizens can come into the united states. so it is also this particular legislation tries to get the personnel of the t.s.a. to focus
on screening that many of my fellow members on the committee have been calling for. and of course that the administrator has listened to. this legislation represents the kind of commonsense security measure this congress must focus on to make both the department of homeland security and its components work more. it is of course my hope that we can look forward to more work being done with transportation and security, that we can look to providing as i introduced legislation dealing with air marshalls, both their funding and increased utilization on some of our flights coming into the united states, that we will have the opportunity to do a transportation authorization bill again. that i am joined with chairman thompson and we authorized in the 111th congress that drew bipartisan support. and of course mr. king has worked with us on this
legislation. so this particular no fly for me has merit to it. of but as i -- but as i rise to support the thought behind the legislation, passed by the senate, i also remind colleagues that air travel is still dangerous. . whether it is the shoe bomber, the christmas day bomber, also it the constant reporting of intelligence and classified information that suggests how vulnerable our airlines and airports are, whether it is an accidental or incidental intrusion on the tarmac or the perimeters of the airport, whether it is the accidental entry of a public person either visitor or traveling public that goes into an unauthorized area that causes airports to be shut
down, incidents that occurred in newark and other place, we have to realize we have to be particularly sensitive to this question of securing the traveling public, and particularly americans. . that is why in the wisdom of congress we created the transportation security administration that was a mandated and federalized work force of screeners to catch americans and their baggage. it took steps to mitigate these risks. i'm glad that they exist. and so i have an acute understanding of t.s.a.'s role in aviation security. and i also appreciate congressional oversight, but i further appreciate that even with that broad discretion, we have to be keenly aware that in the best of all circumstances some loophole, some misstep can occur. i represent one of the largest systems, bush, george bush intercontinental airport,
william hobby system. as i would want for that airport system, i would want a system of security for everyone. and so this idea of allowing a nonunfettered transfer of your bags coming from a nation that has been an ally but has put into place procedures that we can document that are in fact adequate, accurate and superior, i'm going to raise it to that level because adequacy is not a basis of fighting the dangers of terrorism. i only raise a flag of caution and maybe a red flag that it is important that the department of homeland security study this carefully, make sure that they look at the technology and look at the process that in essence will be put in place because, again, all good things are meant for good, but we know what can happen if in some way
we are in error. i don't want this to be a basis for error. i want this to be a basis for good. and i want this to be the intention of the bill which is to deal with the delays of the screening of bags transferring from flights to international locations and those traveling to the united states are welcomed with a smile that are here to do good and i don't want them to miss their connecting flight. and it might be one of us, but our main focus is to secure the homeland. so to my colleagues, to the chairman and ranking member, i join you in supporting this legislation but i ask that the department of homeland security, the assistant secretary of homeland security who is to give this discretion, to waive screening that seeks to ensure this process works be very keen and careful of
reviewing the process, having the resources to ensure that the technology is superior and that we are constantly reviewing how this is working. i'm sure that we will see many smiles of our travel public. they will welcome that convenience. in the course of the convenience i also argue for security. i know that will be the case, and i will ask my colleagues to support this legislation and as well as we continue to secure the homeland. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. king: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. if the gentleman is prepared to close i will. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: i am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, there are areas where t.s.a. needs to improve
its performance. on that we can all agree. just last week, g.s.o. released a report for t.s.a. properly overseeing privatized screeners and revealing that some airports with their privatize screeners do not perform as well as their federalized counterparts. i look forward to addressing those areas with my colleagues in the 113th congress. today we have an opportunity to support legislation supported by industry, the obama administration and t.s.a. that has the potential to enhance the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of screening baggage. with that, madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to support s. 3542 so it can be sent to the president for his signature and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. king: i urge adoption of this bipartisan, commonsense
bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate bill 3542. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek rick anything? -- seek recognition? mr. king: i ask unanimous consent that the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1998. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1998, a bill to obtain an unqualified audit opinion, and improve financial accountability and management at the department of homeland security. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york, mr. king, and the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. king: madam speaker, i ask
unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: i rise in support of s. 1998, the dart act, introduced by senator scott brown of massachusetts. this will improve financial accountability and management at the department of homeland security. since the department opened its doors on march 1, 2003, financial management of all 22 emerged agencies has been one of the most significant challenges. fiscal year 2012, over nine years since d.h.s. was created, was the first time the department was able to complete a financial audit and received a qualified opinion on all five financial statements covering the entire department. unfortunately d.h.s. has been unable to get an unqualified or clean opinion stating that there are no material weaknesses in its financial systems. until such time there is
confidence in the d.h.s. financial structure, questions will remain on how d.h.s. accounting -- on how d.h.s. accounts for taxpayer money. this important legislation is needed but will require the department to create a plan to meet the requirements to reach an unqualified opinion. specifically, the bill requires the secretary of state to take all necessary steps to ensure all financial statements of the department are consolidated and ready in a timely manner in preparation for an audit. second, the d.h.s. c.f.o. is to report to congress on its efforts to reach an unqualified opinion. this legislation requires this reporting requirement until such time as the department is able to reach an unqualified opinion. also, d.h.s. is to report to congress on its progress including resources needed, deadlines for addresses deficiencies and efforts to modernize d.h.s.'s financial monitoring systems. it's essential d.h.s. obtain control over its financial systems and address the
identified weaknesses. this legislation sends the department in a right path to obtain an unqualified opinion. i'd like to thank chairman issa and the committee on oversight and government reform in working with the committee in getting this important bill to the floor. i ask unanimous consent that the exchange of letters between our two committees be inserted in the record. i ask my colleagues to support s. 1998 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: madam speaker, i rise in support of s. 1998, the d.h.s. audit requirement target act of 2012 and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, since it was established nearly a decade ago, the department of homeland security has been unable to obtain a clean or unqualified audit of its financial statements. this is simply unacceptable. when i was chairman last congress, the committee on
homeland security conducted significant oversight of the deficiencies that have plagued the department's financial management efforts since its creation. while we understand that d.h.s. has taken many of the steps necessary to obtain a clean audit, more remains to be done. s. 1998 will direct d.h.s. to take the necessary steps to obtain a clean audit by the end of fiscal year 2013. it also requires d.h.s. to report to congress on the plans to strengthen its financial controls and modernize its financial management system. madam speaker, s. 1998 hps helps put d.h.s. on a path toward sound financial management, and for that reason i plan to support the bill today. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. king: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from mississippi.
mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman, and i rise in support for s. 1998 and commend the basis of this legislation which will look for a clean audit report and in particular as it relates to congress a report on the plan to obtain an unqualified opinion annually until an unqualified opinion is submitted and submit to congress a report on d.h.s.'s plan to -- plans and resources needed to modernize d.h.s.'s financial system. let be clear -- let me be clear that we know we need resources to secure the homeland but this has $40 billion in the annual budget, 30,000 employees. d.h.s. is the third largest federal department. it demands a clean audit. i'd indicate that one of the issues we've continued to work
on in the committee is to ensure that the access to small minority and women-owned businesses to the vast contracting needs that d.h.s. is engaged in. in particular, when there are natural disasters, we are often seen where those who live in the area who would benefit from being able to be the contractors or to be able to work on the restoration and remove debris cannot access d.h.s. in a fairway to be able to secure a contract to put people to work. so even as we are talking about audits, i'm talking about management processees as well. i would hope that this legislation as it begins to look at audits and making sure we have an unqualified audit will also look at the process as we go forward in the 113th congress because as we secure the homeland, we want to make sure we have a department of homeland security that has had very fine leadership in secretary napolitano to be able to assure that the infrastructure that runs this
agency is parallel to the infrastructure that is securing america. i think that will be a perfect system, so i do support this legislation and i hope the comments about small, minority and women-owned businesses are taken to heart and we will find a way to ensure that our resources, tax dollars are utilized by the american people in the right and appropriate way. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. king: madam speaker, i have no further speakers. if the gentleman from mississippi has no further speakers, i'm prepared to close once he does. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: madam speaker, i have no more speakers and i'm prepared. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, in summary, s. 1998 is another step in congress' effort to put d.h.s. on a sound financial path. and speaking on a path, madam speaker, this is probably the chair's last official act on
the floor. and i want to just say to him today that i've enjoyed his chairmanship on the committee and i'm certain whatever the future holds in congress he will be a worthy participant in the process. and i'd like to personally say i've enjoyed working with him and with that i yield back. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. mr. ranking member, i knew that mr. king would have other opportunities to be on the floor. we are going to be here through christmas. if that is not the case, then he has a smile like santa claus. i will say to chairman king as well, thank you for your service. there's no doubt of your commitment to america's security and i've enjoyed having the opportunity to work with you on the committee. again, i yield back to the gentleman. mr. thompson: thank you. reclaiming my time, madam speaker.
i urge my colleagues to support the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. king: madam speaker, i would like to thank senator brown for introducing this legislation to address the ongoing d.h.s. financial matters and challenges. also, let me thank the ranking member, mr. thompson, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, ms. jackson lee, for their kind words. this probably will be my last appearance on the floor as chairman of the committee. i want to thank the ranking member. now it's been over seven years we worked together as chairman and ranking member. i enjoyed working with you. i enjoyed it look more when you were chairman. i'm sure you enjoyed it a lot more when you were chairman. i always found it a privilege to be able to work with you. when we could cooperate we did. when we had honest differences i think we expressed them in a very gentlemen leeway. i know you did. i want to thank you for that. i want to thank the committee staff. especially mike, mandy, carrie
ann and the majority and minority staff. madam speaker, i like to thank you for your years of service in the house as well. and, again, it's been a great privilege being chairman. i believe we achieved a lot and, again, i think most importantly what the ranking member has tried to do and i tried to do is establish the significance of this committee and to prove that on major issues affecting the country both parties can work together in a bipartisan way. and i thank the gentleman for his cooperation on that and back to business, i urge support of the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass designate bill 1998. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6364 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to establish a commission to ensure a suitable observance of the centennial of world war i, to designate memorials to the service members of world war i including a national world war i memorial on the mall in the
district of columbia and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz and the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: weather. mr. chaffetz: we're about to come up on a very important date regarding world war i this bill sponsored by the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, h.r. 6364 is a very worthy undertaking that the congress i believe should enact. so in the spirit of that, i'd like to actually recognize and yield time, such time as he may consume to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.
mr. poe: appreciate the gentleman from utah yielding time. madam speaker, frank buckles was the epitome of an american hero and a man who would do anything for this great united states of america. this is a photograph of him recently taken after he joined the united states army. frank buckles wanted to be in the united states army, he volunteered new york one would take him because, you see, he wasn't 18 he finally continued to lie about his age, convinced a recruiter he was 21 and at this age of 16 he joined the united states army in the great world war i. he wanted to get to france as soon as he could and so he volunteered to be in the ambulance service. what he did when he got to europe was rescue and pick up other dough boys in europe out of those trenches and get them behind, take them back behind american lines so that they could be taken care of their
wounds and he also picked up many of our americans, 114,000 to be exact that died in the great world war i. he was allowed or was able to come back to america alive he made it through the war. although many, as i mentioned, did not. many americans when they came home from the great war over there, as cohen said, difed the new. they picked up in europe in fact many of them a great number of them depride the spanish flu, almost as many as died in europe itself. frank buckles then went to work and during his work, he went to the philippines. when he was in the philippines, the japanese invaded in world war ii. he was captured and put in a prisoner of war camp for three and a half years. he was about to be executed and
the americans came and liberated the camp and he along with the other prisoners of war came back to america. frank buckles went back to west virginia where he worked his farm and drove the tractor until he was 107, madam speaker. it was his decision and his life's goal that he would be instrumental in helping build a memorial on the mall for all of the veterans who served in the great world war i. i met him in 2007 and this project has been going on now for five years. to try to get approval to build this memorial for all veterans of the world war i on the mall. almost as long as the war took. and so he came to washington, d.c. a few years ago, this is a picture of him that was taken recently before he died at the age of 110 at the d.c. memorial thope mall. what that is is a monument and
memorial to all the veterans from the district of columbia that served in world war i. and i went with him to this memorial where we talked about expanding our honor of all veterans and having a memorial for everybody in the great world war i. that was his goal and he worked with many members of congress on this issue. unfortunately, he was not -- he didn't live long, only to 110, he didn't live long enough to see the memorial created. he was the last, madam speaker, the very last dough boy, american, that lived in the great world war i. they're all gone. every one of them. so it is up to us, members of congress and the public, to speak for them and honor them on the mall aacross the street as would be appropriate. it is, you know, in the mall we have three of the great wars of the last century, three of the
great four wars, that we honor. we honor the -- those in world war ii, the korean war, and vietnam. now it's time to honor those who served in the great world war i. i must compliment a little school down in texas, creekwood middle school and jan york who works there. it was the project of eighth graders years ago to find the world war i survivors and do a history project on them, throughout the world, from all countries. and they did a project on frank buckles as well. we were able to get him on the phone and the eighth grade class at creekwood middle school sang happy birth i do bush birthday to him. those kids who are seniors now will see this memorial built on the mall. i want to thank her and her eighth graders for the history project concept, delving into
american history in depth and finding out what has happened in our great american nation. i also want to thank my friend, emanuel cleaver, from missouri, for his help on this legislation and the gentlelady from d.c., ms. norton, also subcommittee chairman mr. bishop and the committee chairman doc hastings as well. it is important that we pass this legislation, get this legislation passed that will to three things. build a memorial on the mall, it will also set up a commission to honor world war i as this nation is approaching the 100th year and it will also recognize which my friend, mr. cleaver, will talk about, the work of the museum and the national work of the world war i memorial in kansas city. it's time we passed this to honor those great world war i veterans and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. chaffetz: reclaiming my time i'd like to yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. huizenga: i appreciate the gentleman from utah for doing that, i'm glad we can keep this photograph up. here's how i got involved and engaged in this. very personal. the man who took this photograph, david young is a constituent and friend of mine from west michigan. he was part of of a project that went out to try to photograph all the remaining world war i survivor, traveled to europe, to australia, and then had met frank buckles along the way and had got ton know him very well. i unfortunately was not able to meet him in personal but attended his funeral at arlington where we said good-bye as a nation. and i can tell you that it was his desire, it was frank's desire, david's desire, his family's desire, my desire and i think now finally this body's desire to properly say thank you. the other reason why this is very personal and very
important to me is i get to talk about a man named bill huizenga. not me, bill huizenga but my fwraufer bill huizenga who fought in world war i. he was part of a group called the polar bears, men who were chosen from michigan, minnesota, other areas where they were used to the cold, and think sent them to russia to fight in an undeclared portion of world war i. in fact, grandpa bill was there after armistice day where troops remained well into the summer of the following year after armistice and it wasn't until much, much later that they were officially recognized as being part of that. but i can tell you having -- one of my prize pod sessions is my grandpa's old dough boy helmet that hangs in our family's home.
and it's just a fitting, timely thing that we finally say thank you, we finally recognize this group of men who fought a terrible war, who fought a war that so many had hoped would be the war to end all wars. unfortunately, we know that isn't the case. but i would like to commend our friends across the aisle, the gentlelady from the district and the gentleman from missouri for working on this and led by my friend from texas, mr. poe, to get this done. this is an important statement for us and a fitting tribute to that generation and frank, we thank you for your service and for all those families. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from the district of columbia. ms. norton: thank you, madam chair. may i say that we will not only miss you, seeing you occasionally in that chair, i
will especially miss you and i know i speak for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle when i say we will especially ms. you sitting in the chair as chair of the financial services appropriations committee and as a member of this body which you have so graciously served. i ask permission to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. norton: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, i rise in support of this important legislation, h.r. 6364 establishes a commission to ensure the suitable observation of the centennial of world war i. it further provides for the designation of a memorial to the service of the members of the united states armed forces throughout the united states who participated in world war i and it finally protects the district of columbia world war
i memorial on the mall. this bill had to do three things. i want to express my appreciation to all of the members who were party to the agreement that finally resulted in this bill. my colleague, mr. poe of texas, mr. cleaver of missouri, mr. grijalva of arizona, for working with me to preserve the district of columbia world war i memorial in particular. the bill that is before us, madam chair is an example of what can be done when members work together to receive resolution of their individual concerns. earlier this congress, a gentleman from texas, mr. poe, introduced h.r. 938. it would have, among other things, nationalized d.c. memorial by designating it as
the district of columbia and national world war i memorial. now we were all in agreement that there should be a suitable memorial on federal land as we now approach this extraordinary anniversary in 2014. but of course i had to oppose altering the integrity of the d.c. me -- war memorial that memorial was built with not one federal dollar but with the blood and treasure of d.c. residents, including funds from schoolchildren. of the more than 26,000 d.c. residents who served in world war i, the 499 who died, more than the number from three states, have their names individually carved on that memorial. our memorial is deeply symbolic of historic and continuing concerns of district residents, particularly our veterans who
continue to serve without equal representation in the congress, equal rights as citizens, and equal local government control. i am very happy this afternoon to report that h.r. 6364 protects the integrity of the d.c. memorial but goes further. it meets the concern for a world war i memorial here for all veterans and it -- that's the concern that mr. poe spoke of, and it meets mr. cleaver's concern, and the concern of members from missouri, like the -- like you, madam speaker, for a designation of that extraordinarily beautiful memorial as a national world war i memorial. the bill establishes a commission to have an observance of the centennial of world war i and designates memorials to the service of
members of the united states armed forces in world war i, including a national world war i memorial. h.r. 6364 protects the d.c. memorial because it complies with the provision of the commemorative works act that prohibits a new memorial from, and i'm quoting the act, interfering or encroaching on an existing commemorative work, end quote. and the bill goes further by saying the site of the national world war i memorial on federal land may not, quote, infringe upon or adversely impact the district of columbia war memorial. this preservation is critical to d.c. residents who deserve to have a memorial dedicated to their veterans as, i might mention, every single state has as to world war i veterans. because at that time, most
americans thought it preferable to have memorials in their own states so each and every state, each and every state has a world war i memorial. today no one thinks that you have had a memorial to your veterans unless it's on federal land. it has always been our position that a national memorial dedicated to all americans who serve world war i should be located in the nation's capital, and i have been committed and remain committed to working with my colleagues to find suitable locations in the district of columbia for a national world war i memorial. i'm happy that h.r. 6364 allows for such a memorial, does not interfere with the d.c. war memorial and appropriately commemorates the beautiful memorial in missouri. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from the district of columbia. ms. norton: madam speaker, i yield to the gentleman from missouri, who has worked so hard on this bill and has been so creative and diligent and committed, i yield to the gentleman such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. cleaver: thank you, madam speaker. we are here today in an unprecedented show of bipartisanship with this piece of legislation. h.r. 6364 is the product of both sides of the aisle working together to do what is right to honor the memory of our veterans. i especially want to thank representative ted poe for his efforts in bringing this bill to the floor today and
representative eleanor holmes norton for her work on the legislation and of course i'd also like to thank majority leader cantor for his support along the way. frank buckles, who was on the stage of the liberty memorial in kansas city just four years ago during the veterans day program, was the last surviving veteran from world war i. and he was from the state of missouri. unfortunately he passed away during the drafting of this very bill. however, even with mr. buckles' passing, our commitment remains strong as it's never too late to demonstrate our appreciation to the veterans of the great war for their service and sacrifices. this bill will honor that service by establishing a centennial commission that would see to it that the 100th anniversary of the great war did not slip away as many things slip away in this place where there's sometimes more
partisan bickering than necessary. not only does this bill serve to honor the memory of our great veterans, but it stands, i think, as a symbol that bipartisanship and cooperation are indeed possible. the united states formally joined the war in april of 1917, and during that time more than 4.7 million americans served. now, it's our job to serve their memory. the fifth district of missouri, which i proudly serve, includes kansas city, the home of the liberty memorial, and this is the liberty memorial, and i think it's always important for people to see it because i think when people hear the liberty memorial, if they're not from the area, if they have not visited kansas city, they might see something that is, you know, just some little something. you can see this in terms of the kansas city skyline, and i would also take this opportunity to remind people this is the largest city in the
state of missouri. this liberty memorial is one of the great treasures of our community and our state, and it sits atop the world war i museum. in 1919, the people of kansas city raised $2.5 million, mainly through children, in 10 days to create the liberty memorial. the dedication ceremony was the only time in history that the supreme allied commanders were together in one place. the dedication of this memorial was held on november 1, 1921. in 1994 during my first term as mayor of kansas city, the museum added greater majesty to the site with the construction of a me niss pally funded -- municipally funded restoration project. it has the only museum solely dedicated to preserving the
objects, history and personal experiences of a war whose impact still echos today. this bill would also redesignate this facility as a world war i memorial and museum and give it the distinction it richly deserves. -- distinction it richly deserves. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from kansas, one of the sponsors of this bill, mr. yoder. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. yoder: i want to echo the comments of my friend and colleague from missouri, across the kansas city border, who so eloquently described the majesty and beauty of the world war i memorial and museum we have in kansas city. it's truly a national tribute. to spend time on the house floor to take a moment to pay tribute to the men who sacrificed in worrell war i and
to designate this world war i museum the national world war i memorial is something i want to thank him for letting me take part in. i want to thank the gentleman from missouri, mr. cleaver, and the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, who spent so much time on this legislation. as has been said, 2014 will mark the 100th anniversary and centennial war. the frank buckles world war i memorial act will promote the freedoms and ideals of this will honor frank buckles that ted poe and so many others described today. it's sometimes difficult for kansas and missouri, as madam speaker knows, as my colleague from missouri knows to agree on many things. but it's a nice opportunity for a kansan to come down and join with my colleague from missouri, mr. cleaver, and others to take this moment to honor the world war i museum
and memorial in kansas city which does a great job to honoring the sacrifice the veterans of world war i. we addressed veterans were multiple wars to talk about the service and sacrifice and really the legacy that has continued on for generations in this country of serving our country and many people paying the ultimate sacrifice. and so to have a chance to take part of that on veterans day and to be able to recognize the kansas city memorial and museum as the national world war i memorial is a great opportunity. i want to encourage all of my colleagues to take a time to go out to kansas city and to see this museum. it is topnotch quality. i think you'll all be very impressed. i'm pleased to support this legislation today and to recognize that museum and memorial and to ultimately recognize the service and sacrifice of the men and women who served in world war i.
thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia. ms. norton: thank you, madam speaker. i am not only pleased with the outcome with this bill, i am proud of the way it was achieved. this bill about war dead, about war heroes had emotional content, but the members reasoned together and in a collegial fashion agreed upon an outcome that is satisfactory to all of united states -- all of us. there will be three days in which world war i heroes are remembered. for sure here in the district of columbia with the existing memorial. now in st. louis and kansas city. with the majestic memorial that
is there and of course this bill authorizes a second memorial here in the district of columbia, the nation's capital. the members cooperated and achieved the kind of resolution that we hope will during this lame-duck session be the model for how we reach to the ultimate agreement this year and start off next year. thank you very much, and without any more speakers, madam speaker, i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate ms. holmes norton and mr. cleaver for this very bipartisan approach to something that should live in the memories of all americans, the sacrifices that was given in this country to provide so much for us. as we know the united states entered world war i in 1917 to support great britain, france, belgium and other ala's.
it was the first time -- and other allies. it was the first time that we supported others. more than four million when and women served in uniform during the great war. there are 375,000 american casualties during world war i, including 11616,516 fatalities. the upcoming centennial will honor the sacrifices of these great americans. h.r. 6364 creates a world war i commission to establish a memorial in the district of columbia to honor those who fought during the great war. i'd also note that there are no federal funds that are attached to the building of this. h.r. 6364 was favorably reported by unanimous consent in the committee on natural resources last week. i'd again want to thank congressman poe from the state of texas for introducing the piece of legislation, the numerous individuals on both sides of the aisle. it's a very bipartisan approach, and i would urge all
of my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 6364 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to section 3-b of the public safety officer medal of valor act of 2001, 42, united states code, 15202, i am pleased to appoint jo ann hayes-white of san francisco, california, to the medal of valor review board. thank you for your attention to this appointment. signed sincerely, nancy pelosi,
and his plan does not begin to solve our debt crisis. it increases spending. our plan meets these standards, cuts spending and paves the way for real job growth in our country. in the five weeks since we signaled our willingness to forge an agreement with the president, he's never put forth a plan to meet these standards. frankly, that's why we don't have an agreement today.
the longer the white house slow walks this discussion, the closer our economy gets to the fiscal cliff and the more american jobs are placed in jeopardy. >> good morning. lings -- the president said on a daily basis that we should be passing a balance plan. but we continue to hear only discussion on one side of the ledger. it's always been about tax rates increases and nothing about spending. we insist, let's talk about a balanced plan, where are your proposals for spending cuts. even his advisors say any agreement we come to has to include entitlement programs. we ask the president, please, sit down and be specific with us.
let's get that balanced plan. it's interesting the senate passed a bill. the president continues to say support that bill, pass that bill. how is that the case when he continues to say we also need $1.4 trillion in additional new revenues. there's an inconsistency here. let's stop playing gapes. we want to be here for the american people and we want to make sure that we get a balanced solution so that we can start focusing on the one thing that we have seemed to have forgotten, and that is, it's about jobs and the economy. it's about getting people back to work, making sure their life works again, and to finally get us back into the mode of a growing economy. the president seems to be walking us ever so slowly toward the cliff. we've said we're committed to staying here. we're going to stay here up
until christmas eve. throughout the time and period before the new year. because we want to make sure we resolve this in an acceptable way for the american people. >> as the debate continues over the fiscal cliff, i'm reminded once again, you know, i think it's porn that we remember, washington doesn't have a revenue problem. it has a spending problem. and you look at the record debt that's been accumulated over the last four year the projecks are pretty startling over the next 10 queers as to $1 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see. a nearly doubling of our debt. two years ago, i -- we had a baby girl born, and at that time, her share of the national debt was $45,000. and on the current track, by the time she gets in high school, her share of the national debt will be $100,000. $100,000 per child in this
country -- country. america deserves better. our children deserve better. that's why we're not just after the quick fix. we're after a real fix. we want -- this is our moment to lay out that framework, address tax reforms, to address the spend regular forms that america needs. and we need the president to get serious, we need him to get to work with us, so that we can solve this, the sooner the better. the clock is ticking and we're running out of time. >> as a mom who survived raising two teenagers, there were a whole lot of days we weren't speaking the same language. when they said they were chilling, i'd throw them a blanket, when they really were just trying to relax. when they would tell me someone was sick, i was worried about their health when they really just thought they were really awesome. it's similar here in washington these days. when we talk about a balanced
approach, republicans mean we're talking about putting revenues on the table as we have, and spending reforms. and spending cuts. when democrats talk about a balanced approach, they're talking about raising taxes and raising spending. when we talk as republicans about protecting investments, we're talking about protecting my mom's small nest egg that she saved throughout her life so she can retire on and democrats are talking about take manager of people's hard-earned money and investing it in federal spending. we've got a problem. everybody knows that when you spend more money than you take in, you take on debt and no american tamly can operate that and the federal government shouldn't operate like that, even if we gave the president everything he has asked for, tax increases, heck if we eliminated the department of
defense for him, we would still be in the red next year. republicans are here to solve the problem. we need a balanced approach and we need the president to get serious. >> along with lynn's line here, we do seem to be addressing two different issues. the president is address the fiscal cliff, we're dealing with the debt and deficit. this is not about getting through this next month, this is about trying to solve the issues that we face as a nation today and that is the debt and deficit that we face. the president is very fond of talk about the math. let me give you a few things dealing with the math. 2012 will be the third highest revenue receipt into the united states government ever in the history of our nation. the third highest revenue ever received in the hithsroif the united states is coming in in 2012. in this down economy, as paychecks are smaller, federal revenue continues to increase.
the president is very focused on trying to get the clinton tax rates but he ignores the clinton level of spending. what we've got to address is a trillion dollar deficit here. if wrp back at the clinton level of spending this would solve the issue that we're dealing with today. so we've got to find a way to address the real driver and real issue that we're facing, that is the spending. until we address that, it's not going to solve anything. >> a few years ago, we saw a vote in the house -- [inaudible] do you think a reaction like that could push the sides together and force a deal in the next couple of days. >> i'm not going to talk about what outside factors could impact the gos but i will say the president -- i will say
that presidents get elected to lead. the president talked about a balanced approach. we've brought a balanced approach. i've said this and you've all heard me say it and i'm going to say it one more time, we are going to begin to solve our debt problem. we're not going to be able to solve it by kicking the can down the road and doing all the gimmicks that have been done in the past. it's time to address our spending problem. >> can you tell us anything about your conversation with the president last night? >> the president and i had a deliberate call yesterday and we spoke honestly and openly about the differences that we face. but the president's calling for $1.4 trillion worth of revenue that cannot pass the house or the senate. and if you look at -- if you
look at our budget, we had no new revenue in our budget. the president's budget had $1.6 trillion worth of new revenue in his budget. we've been reasonable, responsible in our approach to this. we're going to continue to do that. it's time for the president to do his part. >> did you, after hanging up with the president are you less hopeful you can bridge the difference to get a deal? >> listen, i was born with a glass half full. i repain the most optimistic person in this town. but we've got some serious differences. >> [inaudible] >> the supplemental has been sent up to the hill. the relevant committees are doing their work on the supplemental. when they're finished, we'll take a look at it. >> there was a call yesterday another noon that was pretty
intense. >> it was two different calls. >> how did you go from one to the other? >> i didn't say it was tense. there were some offers that were exchanged back and forth yesterday. an the president and i had a frank conversation about how far apart we are. thank you, everybody. >> good afternoon. we're here because i promised we would be when i was out here earlier with the foreign minister of italy, not to take away from the important focus we had on 2013, the year of cultural -- italian culture in america. i said i would be available for questions later.
so here i am. once again, the republicans have isolated themselves on this middle income tax cut, the president is poised with his pen to sign it. it has passed the senate. democrats in the house are ready to vote for it. and the republicans in the house are resisting. do you remember last year when we went through this on the payroll tax? passed the senate, passed the president, ready to sign, the democrats in the house supporter -- supportive and they held out and held out until they couldn't hold out any longer. i don't know if they understand the impact of that uncertainty on america's households. i certainly hope they do. right now on the floor we're taking up a bill that -- a rule that will say we can continue until december 28 to bring up suspensions. however, they are -- there is more serious business we have
to be dealing with, unless they'd like to bring up the middle income tax cut under suspension and i wager you that if they did it would be overwhelmingly, more than the 2/3 needed to pass under suspension. what are they afraid of? are they afraid of stopping, holding hostage, middle income tax cuts to tax cuts for the wealthy? it's getting really stale. it's getting really old and the closer we get to christmas, it's really getting boring. it's not -- it smacks a little bit of nero but it smacks a little of a lot of things around here. we continue and we'll always continue to support the president in his approach. he has agreed to $1.6 trillion, we all have in voting for the budget control act and other measures that passed the house. $1.6 trillion in cuts. we already took one, over $700
billion in savings, pumped it back into medicare to lengthen its strength for at least a decade as well as increasing benefits now. so we have addressed the issue of entitlements. and the third is, what we need are rev mues in order to balance the budget. i mean to reduce the deficit. we do believe that the best way to reduce the deficit is to create jobs. that's why the president has also in his proposal the commitment to infrastructure and education and the rest which create jobs and build our future. what else -- what are we waiting for? what other information, is there a dove that's going to fly in with a message tied to its leg in what is it they are waiting to find out before they can make a decision? that will give -- to make a decision that will give confidence to our consumers as
well as confidence to the markets. i think the markets know we have to reach an agreement and that's why they've continued to be strong. let's hope it will be soon. now somebody asked me a question and i deferred, was it jill? probably didn't come back. >> what's the interpretation from the conversation with president obecause mark we know you've had a few, as far as the state of the negotiations are? >> you wouldn't expect me to share that with you now would you? >> just your perception. >> something i said all along is we need to have a solution. we will have a solution but it has to be a solution that is there and works for the american people and the president has put forth his budget which contains such a solution. he has also said he's taupe discussion and -- -- he's open to discussion. he knows our views, we trust
his judgment, we all share the same values and we trust his leadership on this. >> is it going to be done by "c.s.i.: miami" -- christmas? >> -- is it going to be done by christmas? >> we have been here on christmas eve but is it the fact that the state of reality, it does take a long time to get these things and the holidays, the closer you get to the holidays to advance things. >> i wasn't here for the health care, that was the senate measure, you will recall. we watched that from home. >> we didn't. >> poor babies. i'm just looking out for you. i want you to -- because the fact is, we who run for public office, this is what we sign up for. you and your families are members of the juries to the world. cover -- are messengers to the world. there's no reason, but again, family values, faith and family, all of that, that's what these holidays are largely
about. we celebrate almost everything in our family, from hanukkah, i say that because that began last saturday, to christmas and then the other cultural, beautiful diversity of san francisco every other cultural kwanza, you name it, we're there. but the fact is, is that these bonding opportunities for family, these rituals of our faith and of our families and of our communities, are strengtheners of our communities and we should be home to be doing that. again, even if it were just us here, that's our job, that's our responsibility. but the uncertainty, the uncertainty that they are willing to inject into the economy, continue to inject into the economy, the uncertainty for consumers, the uncertainty for the markets, it's just not there every single day that goes by, we
could be losing something. everybody has talked about what happens if you go over the cliff, what happens if you don't? what happens if you don't? we send a message of confidence and cooperation and you send something very positive to the world because the world is watching and to the american people who depend on our reaching a solution. so again, does the end of the year, is that bad luck it coincides with the holidays? well it's the calendar. but the fact is, if we were waiting for something, you could say it was well worth the wait. but we're just -- republicans are just the laying, just delaying, delaying, an delaying and that's not responsible. >> speaker boehner is being --
by both the left and right, as a former speaker what do you think is the risk for him to bring a bill president obama will sign on to, do you think he should be willing to risk his speakership? >> that's what we take the job to do, to risk it for something, not to just sit in the office. let me say this, you may recall, maybe you don't but some of you will recall. in 2006, ewe won the election, sworn in as new congress, president of the united states is george w. bush. the emotion in the election was about ending the war in iraq. ending the war in iraq. do you remember that? and people thought that when the people had spoken that something would happen to that effect. we came back here, there were two issues in the election, well, three, one was stopping the privatization of social security, but we did that sort of early on, so that wasn't the
emotional piece of it. the other was ending the culture of corruption that existed under the republicans here but the main emotional -- people in the streets, by the tens of thousands, you remember that, i remember because there were a lot of them camped out in front of my home. some of them are still there. but the fact is, is that we came in, president bush said to us, no way. so how were we going to get legislation to go to the president in a democratic congress and democratic senate, a republican president, that accomplished what we needed to do. we sent a bill that set out, the planning should be starting in 90 tais, of the president vee -- 90 days, of course the president vetoed that bill. then we had to deal with katrina, here we are, sandy. issues that related to the domestic agenda. here we are, s.g.r., a.m.t.,
other issues we have to deal with now that need to be extended and the issue at hand then, funding for iraq versus right now, middle income tax cuts. i as speaker had to make a decision as a democratic speaker, new democratic majority, very enthusiastic about ending the war in iraq, to bring a bill to the floor that funded the troops. we did in it a bifurcated way, but we said, this is one piece of the bill, those who want to fund an unlimited war in iraq, you have your vote here, republicans largely voted for that, some democrats did, the next piece would be the domestic side of it, including
katrina. they could do that right now. they can bring a bill to the floor, that does in the have -- that does not have the majority or maybe it does have the majority but doesn't have everybody in their caucus on board. we can bring a bill to the floor, but the republicans don't have to vote for it except for 25 of them. and then they can with that, a bill to the floor that does katrina and all the other domestic issues that will expire by the end of the year. i had to do it as speaker. do you know what it was like for me to bring a bill to the floor to fund the war in iraq a war predicated on a misrepresentation to the american people, a highly emotional, in that war where the president said, don't even think about it. we're not changing the policy to iraq. it's tough. but you have to do it. so is the point that you don't want to put your members on the spot, figure it out. we did. figure it out.
and then go forward and continue to debate the issue but don't have our men and women in uniform wondering if they're even going to be high and dry because we couldn't have a policy debate that would later ensue. but that we couldn't have it right there that day in a way that would end the war in iraq. so that was what i -- you asked me about what i do, that's what i did. that's what i did. it was very unpopular. and i have to tell you, i'm not sure i ever recovered among some on the left for that. bringing that bill to the floor. >> one more question because i have a schedule. >> can we get a followup on that last question. this delicate dance that speaker boehner has to do, do you believe that that is of greater importance than it needs to be in order to move
the negotiations on? >> i don't get your point. what dance? the dance he does in his own caucus? >> that he's doing in his own caucus. to get people on board. is that slowing the negotiations? >> i don't have the faintest idea what goes on in that caucus. i'd be the last person to know, you know that. but i believe he's a person of good intention and maybe that gets him in trouble, my saying that, but i believe he's a person of good intention, he knows his responsibility to the country and there's a way to say, we have to do what we have to do, we have to give a middle income tax cut. that is the -- that breaks the chains that have confined our possibilities and once you're not holding those middle income tax cuts hostage to tax cuts for the wealthiest people in america, you open the door for job creation, for growth, for reducing the deficit, for many,
many positive things including the full faith and credit of the united states of america not being in question. so again, i'm not the right person to ask about what dancing goes on, not my job. not my job. and -- in their caucus. but i do know there's a way to bring a bill to the floor that may -- that accommodates the needs of the american people that protects the republicans who don't want to vote for it but that gets the job done for the american people. a piece of legislation that enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in the country, passed in the senate, i'm certain would receive 2/3 at least in the house if it were brought up under suspension. but if not, then there's a way, as we did with iraq, to bring something to the floor. it's painful. but this is a job we signed up for. thank you all very much.
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> nancy pelosi from about two hours ago. earlier the house republican conference spoke about the debt and deficit and the late etc. fiscal cliff negotiations. house speaker john boehner and the white house traded a second round of proposals yesterday on the budget cus that begin to take effect in january of 2013. this is nearly half an hour. >> good morning, everyone. i'm really proud to stand here today with the house republicans and my colleagues to tell a very important story and it's a story of hard working americans and their families. and let me tell you there's no story that is more powerful. the story of all americans, it's the story of moms an dads, husbands and wives, grandparents that work hard and sacrifice, so that they can leave a better america to their
children and their grandchildren. and as the debate is looming over the fiscal cliff, we stand here to fight for those hard working americans and their families. because as the federal government grows larger and larger, the middle class is squeezed more and more. and as i -- i'm a mom. i have two kids. when my daughter was born two years ago, her share of the national debt was $45,000. and if the trend continues, by the time she's in high school that will have grown to $100,000. $100,000 per person in america. so that's what we're fighting for. we're fighting for our children to grow up in an america where they're not burdened with debt but they're embodied with opportunity. this is our moment. this is our moment to take on the -- take on the pressing problems that are facing america. we need overall tax reform. we need spending reforms.
and we need to give that certainty to our middle class families and to our economy. and that's why we stand here, calling upon president obama, to present us with a balanced approach that focuses on cutting spending and not just raidsing taxes. we want to live in an america where it is easier for middle class families to find those jobs, not harder. we want to live in an america where our job creators are able to ex-tand -- to expand and they're not forced to make the difficult cuts. and we want our children to grow up in an america where their opportunities are limitless. that's what the fiscal cliff is all about. it's about people. not politics. it's about protecting america's future. not repeating the mistakes of the past. with that, i'm proud to introduce my colleague, christi -- kristi noem from south dakota. >> good afternoon. thank all of you for coming. i was having a conversation
with my 10-year-old son the other day, talking about lessons i had learn from my grandfather. my grandfather had always taught me that those people you are indebted to, they control you. they control your decisions, your opportunities, and what your future is going to be. right now, the amount of debt our children have sit ogen their heads that they're responsible for for the federal deficit is over $50,000 each. that's going to control them. that's going to control their futures and their decisions that they'll have available to them in the future. that's why the president's plan to raise taxes isn't a solution. because it only covered 8% of our federal deficit. it's not a solution that actually solves the problem that we have. we have got to have a solution that really addresses the problem that our kids and all those kid does up here are going to have to --ky doings up here are going to have to -- kiddoes up here are going to have to deal with. the time is now to make sure we make a tough decision to make sure that our kids can be happy
in the future, can have a wonderful future, and that we don't allow people because of our overspending to control their future that they're going to have because of this great country that we live in. we need to make sure that now is the time to set a direct course for success and for their life. >> the next speaker is >> the next speaker is going to be mario diaz-balart from florida. >> thank you. you know, thank god the elections are over. but it's time to lead. it's time to lead. and i just had a number of meetings back home and people are hurting. small businesses are still struggling. people's mortgages are still upside down. it's still very difficult to find a job. and then we just learned that for every $1 the federal can government is now spending, 42 cents are borrowed. 42 cents is going to our children and our grandchildren's credit card. let's sput put something very --
it's important to put the facts on the table. if we were to just pass the president's plan, 100% of it, these tax increases, we're still looking at trillion-dollar deficits for as long as the eye can see. is that the leadership that we're looking for? or do we not need to finally come together with real solutions to solve our nation's problems? it's time to sit down and work. it's time for the speeches to end and for the hard work to begin. it's time to put real proposals on the table that solve america's problem. that's what we need, that's what the american people expect of us. and that's what we're here willing to do. but it requires also the president to be willing to stop giving speeches and start working on real solutions that fix this problem. [speaking foreign language]
i come from a different viewpoint. i do have a grandchild and i see this through her eyes and the debt that christie talked about is very daunting for her. but i'm also in that middle generation where i'm caring for my parents. they're heavily reliant on medicare and social security and me and our family to support them. and i understand how important those safety net programs are for them. but for these children, if we don't take the opportunity that we have this week, this month, to look at those programs so that when these children are the age of my parents and their children are trying to figure out how to meet those heavy costs of their health care, we will have missed an opportunity that would be unforgivable. and so for my parents, my grandchild and for me and for all the parents and grandchildren and caregivers in this country, we must come with this commonsense plan, we can't ask people around the country, send more money to washington
before we're ready to say washington is ready to make the systemic changes that are so desperately needed so, that these young children can have the comforts that my parents are enjoying right now. thank you. >> and next, sean duffy from wisconsin. >> how's everybody doing? you look good. listen, i disagree with some of my republican colleagues. and that is that the democrats don't have a plan. the democrats most definitely have a plan on these very important issues. they have a plan that is going to keep corporate tax rates where they are today. and they have a plan to raise taxes on the successful small businesses and manufacturers in my district that employ our hardworking families. they have a plan that is not going to address this massive debt and deficit. the drivers of the debt are spending. we spend too much money. they don't want to deal with an entitlement system that's going
broke. and what's the consequence of that? the consequence is that for this generation of political leaders, they're going to pass off a mass of debt that's unsustainable to this next generation of kids. these kids have been great today. this is who is going to pay the price of this irresponsibility. i have six kids. my old set of 13. my youngest is 2. they're not this well-behaved. [laughter] we are going torrell gate these kids, our grandkids, to a lower standard of living. we are going to leave them with higher tax rates. this is unacceptable. our forefathers left us with an america that is prosperous, full of opportunity. we need to do the same for the next generation. and if we don't they're going to throw tantrums just like this. [laughter] listen, let's be responsible. let's reduce our spending. let's reform our entitlements. you know what?
you have republicans come to the table saying, yeah, we'll talk about revenue. but let's talk about revenue in a way that's going to help grow our economy. and put our hardworking families back to work. not in a way that's going to kill jobs in america, send more jobs overseas or in rural america, send more jobs to the corporations away from our small businesses and manufacturers. let's get it done. and now i get to yield to our fine advocate, virginia foxx. >> thanks, sean. good morning. i'm virginia foxx. from north carolina. i represent the fifth district. and i think my colleagues have done a wonderful job of presenting the issues and showing the passion that all of us in the republican conference had. i live in the community my husband and i -- my husband grew up in, our daughter and our two grandchildren live close by. and being a grandmother is one of the greatest joys of my life.
when i'm home, i'm in the stands of their football games and basketball games, i go to the school plays, speak to them in their classrooms and you better believe i do my best to impart some good southern common sense. but common sense is what seems to be lacking in the unserious fiscal cliff solutions put forth by the white house. debt problems of $16.2 trillion proportion don't get solved without real savings and while the president's offer has plenty of washington budget gimmicks, real savings are disappointingly absent. that concerns me and my colleagues. my grandkids are just starting to think about college and what they might want to be when they're older. i worry for them just as my colleagues have said, because a country saddled with debt is not a country where jobs job growth
thrives and where opportunity abounds. a country that spends $1 trillion more than it takes every year is not a country that's going to make it easier for young people to find jobs, to support themselves, move out of their parents' home and pay for their college investments. i want more for my grandchildren than a shaky job market and mountains of debt that they didn't incur. i want to leave them a country as strong and prosperous as the one i grew up in and gave my husband and me opportunities. so i can't in good conscious support any so-called solution that leaves the real work of controlling spending for another day. that's not what parents and grandparents do. we fix problems. we don't back away from them. fortunately real solutions can be found through a little elbow grease and common sense. america's debt is not the result of a money money shortage. it's the result of the government spending borrowed money that must be repaid by the
next generation and the next generation. debt problems are solved by careful budgeting that consists of spending less and saving more. my grandchildren get that lesson from me every week and have come to understand it. do the president and the senate? at some point the adults have to accept responsibility. debt is no more patriotic today than when the president first ran in 2008. the debt problem we face may not be entirely of our own making but every day we don't control spending the problem gets worse for our children and grandchildren. somebody has to deal with it. it should be us. and i want to thank all these young people and their parents for coming out today and now we're going to hear from representative tom reed from new york. >> thank you, virginia. well, thank you very much. i'm tom reed from new york and i thank these young men and women that are with us today. ladies and gentlemen, i hear what the president and the democrats are saying. their solution is increase taxes
to solve this problem. and only increased taxes on the top 2% or the wealthier segment of our society. now, one, i was one of the early-on republicans who said, i will consider revenue if it means we are going to have a serious conversation about solving the crisis that is now upon us. because put it in mathematics. the increased revenue that the president has championed is $80 billion a year. we have a $1.1 trillion national debt problem every year added to the $16 trillion of total national debt. that math doesn't work. that arithmetic doesn't add up. to put it in perspective, every baby born today starts his or her life in america owing over $50,000 per child on their first breath. that is not sustainable.
we need to do better. also, the president champions the affordable care act and obamacare. and he says it solves medicare. well, it moves medicare to 2024. again, do the arithmetic. that's 12 years away. what that tells every 53-year-old man or woman in america is that when you qualify for medicare at 65, the best the president can do under the affordable care act is give you a bankrupt medicare system. these are serious problems facing our country. we need to reform our entitlements to save them for not only this generation but the generation that stands before you with us. we came here to washington, d.c., to do something. the opportunity is before us. i ask the president to join with us and let's seize the moment and do what is right for generations of future americans
and most importantly these kids and my kids back at home. thank you. and with that i'll introduce the chairman of our foreign affairs committee. thank you so much. >> thank you so much. ileana ros-lehtinen from miami. and it's such a joy to see so many wonderful kids here with us and it's a reminder of what we're doing every day is impacting all of these kids and it impact mice granddaughter who's only 3 1/2 years old. morgan elizabeth leten. and i know that every decision that i make has that kind of ripple effect, that it impacts her future and the kind of choices that she will have when she becomes a young adult. and we're in the time now of hanukkah and christmas and can want did a. can you imagine if these young boys and girls had a little present underneath their christmas tree and they open it up and it's a price tag of $50,000 and it says, hey, it's not even uncle scrooge would
give them such a present but that's what we're doing every year when we pass these terrible debts to our children and our grandchildren. they deserve better. morgan elizabeth deserves better. and we must do better. and like shelly, i also have parents who are nearing that stage in their lives where you have to make difficult decisions about their health care. and my mom passed away last year of complications from alzheimer's and my dad is now in the hospital and so we want to do everything we can to preserve their future, their economic future. but at the same time we want to preserve programs like medicare and social security because this is the safety net that the older generation depends on, relies on, and it's a sacred bond and a contract that we have with them. [speaking foreign language]
and now i'm so pleased to introduce todd young. from -- not kentucky but from indiana. >> indiana, that's right. >> he says, kentucky's so bad, indiana looks good. >> she said it, not me. all right. thank you so much. i thank my colleagues for participating in this exercise. i think all who are here in attendance. we're here for the children of america, for the grandchildren of america. i guess i have a more selfish
motive. i'm here for my four children. age 6 and under. abbey, ava, anna and tucker. each of them individually currently owns a share of our national debt. at $50,000 is the current tally. within a few years that will be roughly a $70,000 per child tab that they're going to have to pay off in the future. this is simply unacceptable. this is one of the reasons so many of us ran for congress, is to solve these very issues. we can't tax our way out of this challenge. taxes alone will just not cut it. i think instead we need a balanced approach. we need to both control spending and we need to increase the rate of economic growth in this country. when i say control spending, i'm prepared to put absolutely everything on the table and have an honest dialogue with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. and we need to increase the rate of growth so we can grow more taxpayers in this country. and one way we do that is by simplifying our mind-numbingly complicated tax code.
that's something that the house republican leadership has been pressing. that's something all of us believe in. now, in the end i am open to shared sacrifice, absolutely. but what i refuse to do is to ask for continued sacrifice of the next generation. we just must stop that. let's come up with real solutions, bold solutions, let's solve the biggest problems america faces right here in comes days and weeks. thank you. the next speaker will be lynn jenkins. my hardworking colleague from kansas. >> the american people are hurting. right now. our nation is on an unsustainable path. and you've just heard from my colleagues passionately describe to you how this is personal to them. we stand before you as a group of mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, grandmothers,
grandfathers. and we came to washington to fix the problem. i don't know how any of us can look these kids in the eye today and explain to them that we are unwilling to pay for the things that we're enjoying today. we're just going to send them the bill. that's not why we came to washington. the easiest thing to do would be to take the president's proposal and pass it. but it doesn't solve the problem. you could take all of his tax increases, heck, you could eliminate the department of defense if he wantses and you still are in red ink. none of us came to washington to kick this can down the road. we came here to solve the problem. the only way to do that is to put spending cuts on the table and we call upon the president to do that today. i think we're going to take some questions. oh, renee's going to speak. >> hello.
thank you for coming out and thank you to all of these families and young people. this is truly who we are fighting for. we want to make sure that these young people have jobs into the future. and i want to talk about one of those young people that is back in my district. a friend of mine. i found out about a week ago that she lost her job. she is laid off. she is 26 years old. her boss is a woman, also a small business owner. the very people that we are talking about when we talk about increasing their taxes, the reason she lost her job is because she is part of an event planning business. and they had to make a 30% cut across the board because of 30% projected loss into the new year. they do event planning for businesses like medical technology and biotech and those industries are facing a huge medical device tax coming into the future as a result of obamacare and this economy.
because of the uncertainty that is here and because we in washington have not been able to solve these problems, my friend, who is getting married in april, now has lost her job. will she bounce back? yes, she will eventually. because she's articulate and she's beautiful and she will get another job. will her boss be able to restructure their business? yes. because that's what people do who are job creators. but her life is going to be a little less beautiful. her wedding will probably be a little less beautiful. and she will start her new life off with her fiance who will be her husband in maybe a little bit less of a profitable and a promising way. i say to the president, come to the table, time to get serious about this issue. these people are already feeling the results and the effects of your lack of leadership.
be the leader that the american people re-elected you to be. and sometimes that means making tough decisions. decisions that you wouldn't think you would make. come to the table, let's find those spending cuts, let's give america the certainty that they are asking for. so that we can get these young people back to work and give all these children and young people a promising future. thank you. >> thanks. quick questionless. >> can you tell us what was in the republican counterproposal to the president? we know that maybe $800 billion was still the offer in new revenue. can you give us any more detail on that? >> those details are between the president and the speaker at this point. but it is important that we come to the table with both the spending cuts, as well as the tax reform proposals. we need that framework and those details need to be worked out behind those closed doors. >> when you say the details are between the president and the
speaker, are the house republican leaders aware of those details? or are those only being shared within those two men right now? >> we are -- it is very important for these negotiations to be successful. it is important that they are able to have those conversations and have the back and forth and not play it out in the media. and in the press. so, yes, so. they're working through it. yeah, right here. >> this is a little outside the box. dennis kucinich had a bill a while back, h.r. 2990, the need bill. are you familiar with that? >> can't say i am. >> national employment emergency defense. the key thing is that it would recreate u.s. money and not federal reserve notes where money would be created not as debt like it is now but money would come in to existence debt-free. the government would resume its prerogative of creating its own currency unit. so to really get rid of debt you need to get rid of the very source of debt. has that ever come up? >> i'm not familiar with it. at the heart of the problem,
though, is that the federal government is spending more money than it's bringing in. and you look at the president keeps talking about the tax rates as they were in the clinton administration. i would enencourage him to look at what the spending was in the clinton administration. and we've seen almost a doubling of the debt under this administration and the projections are trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. we have a spending problem and that has to be addressed. this is our moment. to do it. and that's why we're standing here today. >> it's a money problem, not spend aing problem. >> it's a spending problem. thalse at the heart of the debt and the deficit. >> if it comes down to a choice between extending the tax cuts for the 99 -- for the 98% only and going over the cliff, which way do you think it's going to do? what are you going to do? >> the republicans -- we want -- we don't want just the band-aid. we want to fix, we want a real
solution. this is our moment. the american people expect that leadership shown here in the house and the senate and administration to solve these problems and the speaker of the house, john boehner, the day after the election he went to the podium and he said, we're putting revenues on the table. new revenue. we need to address the spending side of this equation. and that is why we're standing here today. we have a few days left. the clock is ticking. but it is important that those negotiations take place. thank you, everyone, for coming. and thank you, especially, to our families, our kids for joining us today. this is all about you. so thanks for being here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> u.s. house gaveling back in about seven minutes or so. for a series of votes. back on to the issue of the fiscal cliff. the "washington journal" has been throughout the last couple of weeks focusing on specific elements of the issue. this morning focusing on social
security and how congressional leaders plan to handle social security as part of the fiscal cliff talks. first up here on overview from a capitol hill reporter on social security. >> here to talk about the prop program and how it is involved in these discussions. steven joining us from the associated press where he's a reporter. thank you for being here. how many people in america receive social security and how much do they get? guest: a little bit more than 56 million people get social security and the average benefit is a little over $12,000 -- let's see, a little over $1,200 a month. so maybe it's like $13,000, $14,000 a year. host: and we're talking about retirees. also, though, the disabled. guest: yes, yes. actually we have a fairly wide group of people get social
security benefits. retired workers, spouses, children, disabled workers, widows, widowers. it's actually a fairly big social safety net of people who get social security benefits. host: as you mentioned, about 56 million beneficiaries. those retirees receive about $1,200 a month on average. the benefits for the disabled, $1,100 a month on average. also there's s.s.i., the s.s.i. benefits, supplemental security income, about $500 a month. how does it get paid for? how does social security get financed? >> social -- guest: social security has been a self-funded program since its inception. it's funded by payroll taxes. there is a 12.4% tax on wages up to about $110,000. if you make more than that, then any money you make over that is not taxed as part of social security. the 12.4% tax is divided equally between your employer and the worker.
for the past two years the worker's share of 6.2% has been reduced temporarily to 4.2%. that's the temporary tax cut that went into effect for the past got years. that has saved workers, to if you're an average worker making about $50,000 in wages a year, that's a $1,000 tax cut. host: we can see in this pie chart where that money comes from. payroll taxes making up nearly 83%. also interest and taxation of benefits. over here on this pie chart we see the payout, benefits. 90% of the money that's spent go to benefits. also administrative expenses. an increase in trust funds and then railroad retirement, financial interchange. what are some of those other numbers we're seeing there? guest: what you're seeing is the interest is from the trust fund. so when the last time social security was overhauled in 1983, they put in a system that generated more money in tax revenue than was being paid out in benefits. so, a trust fund was built up.
that stands at about $2.7 trillion right now. so when social security had that additional money, actually the treasurey holds it, you know, they invested it in treasury bonds and those treasury bonds are in interest -- earn interest. and so that's where that big portion of your income for the trust fund comes from interest. also taxation of benefits, if you get benefits above a certain amount, those are also taxed. host: as you mentioned, that social security trust fund, $2.6 trillion or $2.7 trillion, that old age and survivors insurance, we also see disability insurance. guest: yes. social security is, like you said, not just a retirement program. it's also for disabled workers. if you are disabled and i believe the government definition says if you have a disability that prevents you from working and that -- and that condition is going to last at least a year, then you can apply for and get social security disability benefits as well. it's not easy to get them. that program is a lot more complicated than the retirement
program. and so it is really -- it's a social insurance program so much. it's not just a retirement program. host: how does social security factor into this fiscal cliff negotiation process. guest: the republicans put forward a plan in the last few weeks to change the way the annual cost of living adjustment is calculated for social security beneficiaries. the cost of living ajudgment, commonly known as the cola, it's the annual increase in benefits that people get in their monthly payments. it's usually annual. there's a couple years where they didn't get any. this coming year, for instance, next month in january they're scheduled to get a 1.7% increase in benefits. that is based on a government measure of inflation. the consumer price index. specifically for social security, they use the consumer price index for urban wage earners. there is a new measure of inflation that the government has been considering for a while. it's called the chain c.p.i.
and on average it is a little bit lower. it reflects a lower level of inflation than what the government has been using up until now. on average the social security administration tells us that every year it would mean the cola would be about 0.3% less -- 0.percentage points less than what it has been. so that 1.7% increase coming in january would be about 1.4%. last year the increase was 3.6%. that would be about 3.3%. that's the biggest defective of adopting this new measure of inflation that the republicans have put on the table. the reason why we've been focusing on this and a lot of the advocacy groups for older americans have been focusing on this is that the president, he accepted it -- i wouldn't say he agreed to, because a year and a half ago they were in deficit talks and the talks fell apart. nothing's agreed to until everything's agreed to. however, he put on the table, the president put on the table
this idea of adopting a chain c.p.i. so we have a president who has supported this in the past. we have a speaker of the house who supports it now which makes it in play. there are other political dynamics on capitol hill that make it a lot more difficult to adapt -- adopt. and it's interesting. this is a very sort of subtle thing to do, to change the way the government measures c.p.i. but it has far-ranging effects. effects that go far beyond social security as well. it is projected to raise about $200 billion over the next 10 years. maybe a little bit more. if they adopted it across the whole government, it would affect taxes over time. every year our tax brackets are adjusted for inflation. and if they are adjusted a little bit less each year, then as you make more money you would move into a new tax bracket and get a tax increase. it's about $60 billion tax increase over the next 10 years. it could affect the anti-poverty programs. the poverty level level. the. a money you can make and be under the poverty line is adjusted each year for inflation. that would go up less each year,
then that would mean fewer people would qualify for anti-poverty programless. it could also affect military pensions, federal civilian pensions. it could affect medicaid. and lots of other programs like that. and the budget cutters like this idea because it saves money, it doesn't save thatch money at first, but it saves a lot of money over time. like i said, a little over $200 billion in the first 10 years, more after that. the savings continue to grow and grow. advocates, advocates for older americans don't like this idea very much at all. because the savings are so big that means they're getting less money. each month in their benefits and each year. host: so twofold, there's the question of what it would mean for retirees, beneficiaries right now in the next couple of years and ongoing into the future and then the precedent-setting measure of what it would mean across the board in the government. what do democrats think of this? you mentioned president obama might be amenable to it but how about house and senate
democrats? guest: you had congressman larson on here and you heard what he said about including social security in these talks. that is a common belief and opinion among democrats on the hill. in both the senate and the house. that that would be very hard to sell. one of the things i've been seeing ever since these talks have started, there's been a lot of focus on whether republicans would agree to raising these tax rates. if they ever did, you know, what gets lost in that discussion is what would democrats have to give up? and presumably republicans would want some deep cuts into entitlement programs. it's not clear that democrats will be onboard with that. i think senator harry reid, the majority leader in the senate, has said that social security should not be a part of this. so has nancy pelosi, the democratic leader in the house. host: the cost of living adjustment in social security, does that change depending on where you live in the country? if you live in a more or less expensive area? or is it across the board for everyone? guest: it's across the board for everyone so it's a percent.
it depends on how big your benefits are each year. you cited some average numbers of about $1,200 a month for a retired worker. a lot of people get more. some people get less. so the dollar amount for your increase would change depending on that. but, no, the percentage increase is the same no matter where you live in the country. host: reporter for the associated press. we're talking about social security and how it factors into the so-called fiscal cliff. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> waiting for the u.s. house to gavel back in momentarily for a couple of votes including a vote on the rule allowing legislation to be brought up before the house through december 28. and also a measure to continue to allow the sale of certain asthma inhalers that are about to be banned. those votes momentarily on the house floor here on c-span. over in the senate they've been largely in a period of general speeches today with a number of tributes and farewell speeches on the senate floor, including from senators kent conrad and joe liebermann. and you can see those in our
resolved, section 1a, each bill and amendment of the senate specified in subsection b, one, in the opinion of this house, contravenes the first clause of the second section of the first article of the constitution of the united states and is an infringement of the privilege of this house and two, shall be respectfully returned to the senate with a message communicating this resolution. b, the bill and amendment of the sfath referred to in subsection a are as follows. one, senate 3254, two, the senate amendment to h.r. 4310. the speaker pro tempore: the resolution presents a question of the privelebling os they have house. without objection the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m.
tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by the direction of the democratic caucus i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate considering. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. caller: house resolution 830, resolution designating the ranking of a certain named member a certain standing demofe house of representatives resolved that mr. michaud shall rank above ms. brown of florida on the committee on veterans affairs. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order, ordering the previous question on house resolution 827. adopting house resolution 827
if ordered and suspending the rules and passing h.r. 6190. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. the remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 827 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. caller: house calendar number 162, house resolution 187. motion providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is